m
Cornell University Library
HJ213 .P97
Revenue laws pl P«°M,|,!i',l;S|ilP||i|f
3 1924 030 217 917
olin
T^y 1
(Qorttell Hntoctsitg library
Stfjata. J^cm ilork
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE
SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND
THE GIFT OF
HENRY W. SAGE
1891
Date Due
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030217917
REVENUE LAWS
OF
PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS
EDITED FROM A GREEK PAPYRUS IN THE BODLEIAN LIBRARY, WITH
A TRANSLATION, COMMENTARY, AND APPENDICES
B. P. GRENFELL, M.A.
FELLOW OF queen's COLLEGE, OXFORD; CRAVEN FELLOW
AND AN INTRODUCTION
REV. J. R MAHAFFY, D.D, Hon. D.C.L.
FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN
HONORARY FELLOW OF QUEEn's COLLEGE, OXFORD
WITH THIRTEEN PLATES
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1896
Bottion
HENRY FROWDE
Oxford University Press Warehouse
Amen Corner, E.C.
(Jlw 3)ovft
MACMILLAN lii CO., 66 FIFTH AVENUE
TO
W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE
PREFACE.
The Revenue Papyrus consists of two rolls, of which the
first containing columns 1-72 was obtained by Prof. Flinders
Petrie in the winter of 1893-4; the second, containing the
other columns and originally perhaps wrapped round the first
roll, if not actually forming a part of it, was obtained by myself
in the winter of 1894-5.
The first roll measures 44 feet long ; the second, of which
only fragments exist, must at one time have measured not less
than 1 5 feet. The height of the papyrus cannot, owing to its
fragmentary condition, be precisely determined, but was in the
case of columns 59-72 about 9g inches, in that of the rest
3^ inches more. The papyrus is thus by far the largest Greek
papyrus known, and as it is in several places dated ' in the
twenty-seventh year' of Philadelphus, or 259/8 B.C., it is also
nearly the oldest.
Both the external and the internal evidence point to its
provenance having been the Fayoum, a remarkable fact, since
the countless Greek papyri which have been found in that
province have, with the exception of the Gurob papyri and
a few others, all belonged to a much later date.
The papyrus is written by a number of scribes, but to
VI PREFACE.
determine exactly how many is a difficult problem. I think
that I can distinguish twelve, in addition to one or more cor-
rectors. The choice of the columns to be reproduced in facsimile
has been made with the view of exhibiting both the variety of
the hand-writings and those columns of which the contents
are most important.
With regard to the text I have endeavoured to present
as faithful a transcription of the original as is convenient to
modern readers. I have therefore divided the words, and caused
the initial letters of the proper names and the headings of
sections written in large spaced letters to be printed in capitals.
But in other respects the text is printed just as it is in the
original. Blunders or mistakes in spelling are left uncorrected,
criticism being reserved for the commentary ; and I have not
thought it worth while to disfigure the pages by the constant
insertion of sic. Any blunder in the text which is liable to
misconception is explained in the Commentary, as are the few
abbreviations and symbols which occur. Nor have I inserted
stops, breathings or accents, which, in publishing a papyrus of
such antiquity, seem to me a needless anachronism. There
is the less reason for inserting them in the present case, since
in places which are ambiguous the reader can refer to the
translation, where he will find the construction which I propose.
The division-marks in the original between lines mark the
beginning of new sections, and where a new section begins in
the middle of a line, as occasionally happens, the division-mark
is between that line and the one foUowinof.
Square brackets [ ] indicate that there is a lacuna in the
papyrus, and the number of dots enclosed by the brackets
signifies the approximate number of letters lost, judging by
the analogy of the average number of letters which occupy the
PREFACE. VI 1
same space in the preceding and following lines. Of course
certainty must decrease in proportion to the length of the
lacuna, and where the ends of lines are lost, a guess — more or
less probable, as it is based on the ends of lines preserved
above or below, or merely on general considerations from the
requirements of the sense or the average length of lines in the
column — is all that is possible. Moreover letters, of course,
vary considerably in size, e. g. there is hardly any scribe in
the papyrus who does not occupy as much space with a t as
with ots. Nevertheless, in those cases where I have supposed
the lacuna to be not greater than six or seven letters, not
being the end of a line, I am ready to deny the admissibility
of emendations which are clearly inconsistent with the average
number of letters of normal size being what I have suggested.
I have ventured to insist somewhat strongly on this point,
partly because a number of emendations can very easily be
made by ignoring the dots, and partly because when a column
is broken in two, or when fragments are detached from the
rest of a column, as e. g. frequently happens in the first twenty-
three columns, it may at first sight seem impossible to fix the
number of letters lost with even the approximate certainty
which is all that I wish to claim. But in most cases this is
not so. When a column is broken in half, the holes and breaks
which occur at regular intervals in the folds of the papyrus
enable us to calculate to -rV inch, if necessary, the position of
the two halves, while as the detached fragments for the most
part fell away from the rest in lumps containing several thick-
nesses, the determination of any one of these layers is there-
fore sufficient to fix precisely the position of all the others
in the same series. That the position of everj- fragment is
certain I do not wish to maintain, but I would ask my readers
viii PREFACE.
to believe that both Prof. Petrie and I have spent much
time in fixing the places of the fragments, that the positions
depend for the most part on careful measurements, and that
where there was neither external nor internal evidence sufficient
to fix the position of a fragment with a near approach to
certainty, the doubt has been recorded in the notes, or no
attempt has been made to decide the exact relation of the
separate parts. Thus in columns 79-107, I have left undeter-
mined the amount lost between the two halves into which
nearly every column is divided, although the approximate
position of nearly all the fragments making up those columns
is certain.
Dots outside square brackets indicate letters which, either
through the dark colour of the papyrus or through the oblitera-
tion of the writing, we have been unable to decipher.
Dots underneath letters signify that the reading of the
letters is doubtful, in nearly all cases owing to the mutilation
of the papyrus. But where a letter is for the most part broken
away, and yet the context makes it certain what the letter was,
wishing not to create apparent difficulties where none really
exist, I have generally printed the mutilated letter either
without a dot or inside the square bracket, and have reserved
the dots underneath letters for cases where there is a real
doubt.
Round brackets ( ) represent similar brackets in the original,
which mean that the part enclosed was to be omitted. Angular
brackets < ) mean that the letters enclosed have been erased
in the papyrus. Corrections in the original are reproduced
as faithfully as possible, the smaller type implying that the
correction was made not by the scribe himself, but by another
writer. This distinction is of considerable importance, espe-
PREFACE. ix
cially in columns 38-56, where the reader will easily be able to
differentiate mere corrections of blunders by the scribes them-
selves from the changes introduced by the Bi,op9o)Tyj<;.
The excellence of the facsimiles can hardly perhaps be
appreciated to the full by any one who has not the original
before him, and therefore cannot realize the difificulties with
which the photographers of the Clarendon Press have had
to contend. Most of the papyrus is written in large clear
hands which are easy to read, and of which the facsimile is
almost, or even quite, as clear as the original. But the papyrus
is in many parts stained a very dark brown, sometimes almost
black, and in many parts the surface of it has scaled off; and
these parts, although by holding the papyrus in different lights
they are generally decipherable with certainty, must of necessity
be less clear in the facsimile than in the original. Nevertheless
that the facsimiles are, on the whole, extremely successful will,
I am sure, be admitted.
As has been implied in the foregoing remarks, there are not
many passages where there is much doubt about the reading of
the papyrus, when the writing is there. There are, however,
a few passages which have resisted our combined efforts, but of
which the correct reading can be verified as soon as it is sug-
gested. On the other hand, the great difficulty throughout has
been to fill up the lacunae. Here it will not be out of place to
explain the principles on which I have adopted or rejected
conjectural readings. In printing a reconstructed text of a
papyrus so mutilated as the present one, two courses were
possible. One would have been to carry conjectural emenda-
tions to the furthest point, and to have stated the precise
grounds on which each one was made. The other course was
to draw a sharp distinction between conjectures which were
b
PREFACE.
based on parallel passages in the papyrus itself or elsewhere,
and conjectures which, though often probable enough in them-
selves, were not so based, and while admitting the first class into
the text, to reserve the second for the Commentary. It is the
latter course, not the first, which I have adopted. And if it be
a matter of regret to some that in so many places gaps have
been left, which could with more or less probability have been
easily filled up, the answer is this, that the place of many frag-
ments was not found until after our text had almost reached its
present condition, and that we have therefore been able to some
extent to test the value of our conjectures. The result showed
that where our conjectures had been based on a parallel passage
in the papyrus itself, they were nearly always right, and where
they had been based on a parallel passage in another papyrus,
they were generally right, but that where they were based on
the grounds of a priori probability, they were generally wrong,
I have therefore not admitted into the text any conjectures
which are not based on a parallel passage either in the papyrus
itself or in papyri of the same period and dealing with the same
subjects, except in cases where the conjecture was so obviously
right that it required no confirmation, and in a few other cases,
where some a priori conjecture was necessary in order to attach
any meaning to the passage. Where a conjecture is based on
a parallel passage in the papyrus itself, from considerations of
space I have not as a rule stated the grounds in the Commentary,
unless there was some difficulty, as the reader who wishes to
verify the conjecture can do so by referring to the Index. But
where a conjecture is based on a parallel passage in another
papyrus, or where it is only based on a priori grounds, the fact
is recorded in the Commentary, in which will also be found
a number of conjectures not admitted into the text. In addition,
PREFACE. xi
more or less obvious conjectures, which for various reasons will
not suit, are occasionally recorded.
A word of explanation is necessary with regard to the mount-
ing of the papyrus, and especially of these columns which are
facsimiled. The unrolling and mounting of the first roll was
undertaken by Prof. Petrie himself, and the skill which he has
shown in mounting so mutilated a papyrus of which the texture
is excessively fine and brittle, is beyond all praise. It was clearly
impossible for him to accurately fix the position of fragments
which became loose as soon as the papyrus was opened, and he
rightly preferred to paste the fragments down in places which
were approximately correct, than to run the risk of their being
lost before their precise position could be fixed. The result of
this was that, especially in the earlier and most mutilated part,
a number of pieces were more or less misplaced, though the
correct position of all but a very few has now been determined,
and in many cases marked in pencil on the papyrus. Without
claiming any infallibility, I would therefore ask my readers when
they notice, as they frequently will, apparent inconsistencies
both in readings and in spacings between the printed text and
the original, to believe that the arrangement or reading in the
text has not been adopted without good reason. In one or two
places I noticed, on reading through the papyrus since my return
to England, that a few letters had disappeared, but fortunately
the loss was of practically no consequence.
My last and most pleasant duty is to express my sincerest
thanks to the many friends who have aided me in the present
work, and particularly to those distinguished specialists in the
history and palaeography of this period, with whom the interest
in a common study has made me privileged to become ac-
quainted.
b a
XI 1 PREFACE.
The debt which lovers of antiquity owe to Prof. Flinders
Petrie for the recovery and preservation of the first roll, which
alone gives to the scanty fragments of the second what value
they possess, has already been stated. But it is my duty in
particular to thank him for placing the work of publication in
my hands, and for his frequent help in the difficult matter of
arranging the detached fragments in their correct places.
With Prof Mahaffy I have discussed on frequent occasions
all the problems both of reading and interpretation. We have
read the original together, and the Translation and Commentary
have been completely revised by him. Many both of the
readings in the text and of the explanations are his, and what-
ever merits this book may possess are in the main due to the
fact that I have had the constant help and criticism of a scholar
whose knowledge of both the history and the papyri of this
period is equalled by his brilliancy in overcoming difficulties.
On nearly all points we are agreed, but as there are a few on
which I have ventured to differ from him, the responsibility for
error lies only with the writer of each section.
Prof G. LuMBROSO I visited at Rome in September 1894,
when our edition had not nearly reached even its present
degree of completeness, and he most kindly consented to go
through the whole text with me, and to him I owe a large
number of most valuable criticisms and suggestions.
Recently in August 1895, in our final consultation over the
text we have had the great benefit of Prof U. Wilcken's
aid. Several of the remaining difficulties were solved by
him, and he has also made many admirable suggestions and
criticisms. Besides these I have specially to thank him for
most generously placing at my disposal the materials of his
two forthcoming great works, the Corpus of Greek ostraca
PREFACE. xui
and the Corpus of Ptolemaic papyri. These have proved of
inestimable service in several places, especially in reaching
that solution of the coinage questions which I have proposed
in Appendix III.
Professor E. P. Wright of Dublin has given me valuable
help on special points connected with botany, and Prof. P.
Gardner has aided me on special points of numismatics.
Though he is not in the least responsible for any errors in
Appendix III, without his aid I should not have ventured —
with a boldness of which I am fully conscious — an excursion
into the difficult and technical field of Ptolemaic numismatics.
My friend and partner in the Craven Fellowship, Mr. A.
S. Hunt, has lightened for me considerably the burden of
revising the proofs, and while doing so has made several good
suggestions.
The typography of the Clarendon Press requires no com-
mendation ; but I cannot conclude without expressing my
thanks to the Delegates for publishing this book, and to the
Controller and staff of that institution for the care which they
have spent both in preparing the facsimiles and in printing
a text so difficult as the present.
Finally, some consideration will, I hope, be shown for the
shortcomings of this volume on account of the speed with which
it has been produced. Neither Prof. Mahaffy nor I saw the
papyrus until June 1894, and the work of publication had to
be suspended from November 1894-April 1895 owing to my
enforced absence in Egypt, a delay which however has amply
justified itself by the recovery during the winter of the second
roll. It is possible that a longer period of deliberation would
have resulted in fewer difficulties in the text and greater com-
pleteness in the explanations. But I have not wished to violate
XIV PREFACE.
the traditional example which this country has set to the rest of
Europe, of placing its latest discoveries before the world with
the utmost possible despatch.
Meanwhile, in the words of one of my predecessors in
this field of research, Itidicent doctiores, et si qtnd probabilius
habuerint, proferant.
B. P. GRENFELL.
Queen's College,
October 5, 1895.
CONTENTS
PAGE
V
Preface . .
Introduction, by the Rev. J. P. Mahaffy ...... xvii
Text i
Translation and Commentary . . . . . . . -15
Appendices : —
I. Louvre papyrus 62. Text and Commentary . . • ''■11
II. Some unpublished Petrie Papyri 187
III. The Silver and Copper Coinage of the Ptolemies . . -193
Indices : —
I. Index of proper names and place names . . . .241
II. Index of symbols and abbreviations ..... 242
III. General Index 242
INTRODUCTION
TO THE REVENUE PAPYRUS.
§ I. General Description.
Since the discovery of the collection now known as Mr.
Petrie's papyri, of which the mummy cases of the Gurob cemetery
were mainly composed, no greater surprise has come upon the
students of Ptolemaic Egyptology than the acquisition, by the
same discoverer, of another great document belonging to the
third century B.C. In the year 1894 Mr. Petrie bought from
a dealer in Cairo a roll which is actually 44 feet long. There was
no clear evidence to be had concerning its provenance, but the
probability that it came from the Fayoum was raised to certainty
by Mr. Grenfell in 1895, since he acquired, not only at Cairo,
but in the Fayoum, further very important fragments so similar
in texture, handwriting, and subject, as to make it clear that they
belonged to the same roll or set of rolls. Most unfortunately,
Mr. Petrie's great roll had been broken near the top, probably
by a stroke of the spade, at the moment of its discovery, from
some fellah digging for sebach or for antiquities, and moreover
the whole roll was in the most delicate and brittle condition. It
could not be opened with safety without pasting down each
fragment as it was detached from the rest, and all the skill and
patience of Mr. Petrie were required to carry out so tedious an
xviii REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
operation. Even after this was done, many replacements and
rearrangements were necessary, which could only be made by
Mr. Grenfell after he had become perfectly intimate with the
subject and style of the document. To him is due the first
transcription of the document ; since that time we have con-
stantly discussed the difficulties, re-examined the original on
every doubtful passage, and solved many of the problems which
at first resisted his efforts. In September, 1894, Mr. Grenfell
went to Rome, and consulted Prof. G. Lumbroso on several un-
settled points. In our final conference over remaining difficulties,
we have had the advantage of the advice, the corroboration, and
in a few passages the corrections of Prof. Wilcken, who spent
a week with us (August, 1895) ii^ Oxford, and examined with us
these passages with constant reference to the original, which is
now one of the treasures of the Bodleian Library. We have
thus had the advantage of the criticism of the two foremost
specialists on Ptolemaic papyri in Europe.
As regards the present state of the text, it will readily be
understood that nothing could save for us the outer parts of
the roll, which had been exposed to wear and handling. The
middle part of all the earlier columns was gone. It was only
as the interior was reached that we found any large proportion
of the writing preserved.
Fortunately the whole document was written on the recto
side of the papyrus, with the exception of two short notes added
by a corrector and specially referred to by the curious direction
EZn OPA, look outside, at the point of the text (cols. 41, 43)
to which each of them belongs. It was accordingly necessary to
set up these columns only between panes of glass ; the rest has
been laid upon sheets of paper and framed. The roll as
originally opened contained 72 columns of text, but the frag-
INTRODUCTION. xix
merits since acquired, which apparently belong to a sister roll
wrapped round it, bring up the total number of columns, accord-
ing to Mr. Grenfell's estimate, to 107, with some undetermined
fragments. I must refer the reader to his translation and
commentary for the details which justify our general conclu-
sions, and for a discussion of the many particular problems raised
by this great new document. The only text which evidently
bears a close analogy to it is the well-known Papyrus 62
of the Louvre collection ^ This, as it both illustrates and is
illustrated by the present documents, has been re-examined in
Paris, collated, and printed by Mr. Grenfell in a more accurate
form in this volume. He has also added some unpublished
fragments of the Petrie papyri on cognate subjects.
§ 2. Age of the Document,
The dates extant in the document are not only of the
greatest importance in fixing its precise age, but also because
they suggest some important rectifications of the hitherto ac-
cepted facts of Ptolemaic history, and of the theories adopted
to explain them. It was plain at first sight, to any reader of the
Petrie papyri, that the various hands in the new document were
all of the third century b. c. The occurrence of the year 2 7 in
several places made it further certain that it must have been
issued during the reign of the first or the second Ptolemy, for
of the succeeding kings, no successor till the sixth (known as
Ptolemy VII, Philometor) attained to so many years' sovranty.
The opening formula (cf. Plate I) might very well have
misled us into attributing the ordinance to the first Ptolemy ;
for although such a formula as it now represents has never yet
occurred, it could hardly, taken as it stands, signify any one else.
' Cf. Les pap. grecs du Mus^e du Louvre, Paris, i866.'
c 2
XX REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
Nevertheless we were not for a moment misled by this snare.
The second date {col. 24), which is also reproduced in our first
plate, though very much mutilated, was clearly parallel to
that occurring once in the Petrie papyri, and found also in
demotic contracts ; it was a formula used by the second
Ptolemy, after he had associated his son (afterwards Euergetes I)
in the royalty. I need not now refer to the fanciful theory of
Revillout, which is wholly inconsistent with this, but which
has now been so completely refuted that he himself has probably
abandoned it. So far then we find ourselves on firm ground,
and the date on cols, 24 and 38 is equivalent to 259-8 B.C., the
twenty-seventh year of Ptolemy usually called Philadelphus \
But why does the first column contain a new and strange
formula ? The Petrie papj'ri show us in the king's later years
(33. 36) a well-known title: BACIAEYONTOC HTOAEMAIOY
TOY HTOAEMAIOY CHTHPOC, and this I attempted to find
here, by assuming that the second HTOAEMAIOY had been
lost between the scraps containing TOY and CfiTHPOC. To
this solution Mr. Grenfell was from the first opposed, as he
urged that the two scraps fitted perfectly together. But I was
not satisfied till Mr. Grenfell, arguing that the word cnTHPOC
had been thrust in at the end of a full line, and that even so
^ As is now well known, we have no evidence that he was so called during his
life, though his wife was. The king and queen jointly are called 0EOI AAEAcf>OI.
Strangely enough, we have as yet found no epithet, such as Soter, by which he
was recognized, till at least a century later, when he is distinguished by historians,
&c. for convenience sake, by his wife's title. Thus in Manetho's letter dedicating
the history to the second Ptolemy, of which Syncellus quotes the opening ^aa.
YItoK. t^a8eA.<^(o trf/SaaTu k.t.X. (ppuxTO jxoi jSatr. (piXraTe, it was long since
observed that o-ej3acrriA.a5eA.(|)a) is so also, and lastly that eppaxro would be an unpardonable piece of
rudeness, Manetho being bound to say evTv-jtjii.
INTRODUCTION. xxi
there was no room therein for another riTOAEMAlOY, hit upon
the true solution. He suggested that the erasures immediately
under the first line, as well as the crowded and smaller characters
of the word CriTHPOC, pointed to a correction of the date.
Even so, the corrector must have blundered, for he should
have left riTOAEMAlOY in the second line, and there added
CflTHPOC. But on re-examining the original according to this
theory, I found the remains of the old formula still faintly
visible in the second line, and this was corroborated by Mr.
Grenfell and Professor Wilcken. What happened was then
briefly this. The corrector desired to replace the older formula
by the later ; but he erased too much, and then added his new
word in the wrong place. Though the document was officially
corrected, as is stated twice over, the corrector was fortunately
guilty of the further negligence of leaving the old formula un-
disturbed on col. 24, thus enabling us to solve the difficulty.
There remains the highly interesting question : why should
the second Ptolemy have not only changed the formula of his
dates in his twenty-seventh year, but also have removed the
name of his son, the crown prince, now of age and the accepted
heir, to substitute for it the title of his deified father ? Demotic
scholars and numismatists are ready with an answer on the last
point. They maintain that the first Ptolemy was not formally
deified till long after his death. It is shown on apparently
good evidence by Revillout and Poole that this deification
took place in the twenty-fifth year of the reign ^ Even then the
gods Soteres were not introduced into the list of deified kings,
beginning with Alexander, whose priest was eponymous magis-
trate at Alexandria. But as the cities of Phoenicia began to
coin with the legend nTOAEMAlOY criTHPOC at this time, it
' Cf. Coins of the Ptolemies, p. xxxv.
xxii REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
is but reasonable to expect that the king would also now style
himself Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy Soter.
So far the change is explicable, but how can we account for
the extrusion of his son, now for some j^ears appearing in the
royal formula ? For this Krall and Wilcken, with others, have
adopted the hypothesis of an unknown son of Queen Arsinoe II,
born after her marriage with this Ptolemy, and associated by
her influence in the royalty, to the exclusion of the elder crown
prince, her stepson^. This supposed youth is further assumed
to have died when he was nearly grown up, and so to have
given occasion for a change of the formula. This complicated
series of assumptions, which has been consistently opposed by
Wiedemann, is highly improbable in itself, and contradicted by
good evidence. In the first place it were passing strange that all
our historical authorities should keep silence on such a matter.
The crimes of Arsinoe in her earlier life are well known, and
had she indeed compelled Philadelphus to oust his elder children
for a new heir, not only would she have murdered them if she
could, but we should certainly have heard of this family feud.
The very well informed schoHast on Theocritus' 1 7th Idyll (1. 128)
even states directly the contrary. He says that Arsinoe being
childless — dreKvos, her elder children had been murdered, and
she had none by Philadelphus — adopted her step-children, and
more especially Euergetes, who is called in all the formulae of
his own dates, the son of Ptolemy and [of this] Arsinoe, GEilN
AAEAOHN. This then is the young prince who appears with
his parents on the steles of Pithom and of Mendes ^, nor is
^ Krall, Sitsungsber. of Vienna Acad, for 1884, pp. 362 sqq. ; Wilcken, art.
Arsinoe in Paully-Wissowg,'s Encyclop. ii. p. 1286; Ehrlich, De Callim. Hyvmis
Quaest. Chronol. (Breslau, 1894), p. 56.
^ Wilcken was the first to call attention to these representations, as well as to
INTRODUCTION. xxiu
there any positive evidence for the conjecture of Wilcken, that
this figure points to the newly assumed son of Arsinoe II. The
lady must have been forty years old when she became Queen of
Egypt, so that a new child would have been remarkable, and
would from this very circumstance have excited unusual notice.
His assumption into the succession would moreover not have
been delayed till the king's nineteenth year, from which Revil-
lout has found the first mention of an associated prince, and
from this time on we have mention of him in years 21,22, and 24,
not to speak of the present case in 27. These facts lead us to
infer that though recognized as prince royal in earlier Egyptian
documents, such as the steles to which Wilcken has first called
attention, Euergetes was not formally associated in the sovranty
till he had reached the age of puberty, when Arsinoe, his step-
mother, was growing old, and the king's health was failing.
The question, however, remains more strange, more pressing
than ever — why was the crown prince's name removed from the
formula starting from the year 27 (b.c. 259-8) of his father's
reign ? After much perplexity, I have found what seems to me
the true answer to this question.
We know that the prince had been already betrothed to the
infant daughter of King Magas of Cyrene, who died, according
to the most probable computation of his fifty years' reign, at
this very time. The queen-mother of Cyrene, Apama, who
was opposed to the match, promptly sent for Demetrius
the Fair, who hurried at once to occupy Cyrene. The whole
narrative in Justin, our only and wretched authority, points to
one at Philae (Lepsius, Denkmaler, iv. 6 a), where Isis is represented suckling the
young prince. He infers from the youth of this figure that it must be an infant
son of Arsinoe II. But as the date of the relief is not given, it may have been set
up just after her adoption of the future Euergetes, and while he was but a child.
xxiv REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
a most rapid course of events \ But Demetrius commenced an
intrigue with Apama, instead of waiting for the time when he
could marry her heiress-daughter, Berenike, and was put to death
with the knowledge, though not at the instigation of the child-
princess. Thereupon, by common consent, Euergetes is called to
Cyrene, and the marriage with Berenike follows, possibly as soon
as the princess was of age, but in any case some years later.
It has sometimes been assumed, perhaps on the suggestion of
a blunder in Porphyry's fragment, which confuses this Demetrius
with Demetrius II, King of Macedonia, that the usurpation of
the intruder at Cyrene lasted for some years ^ There is no
evidence for this. Nay, the words of Justin imply that the
whole affair only occupied a few months. If so, and if Euergetes
was called by the people of Cyrene to assume the government
as prince consort expectant, he doubtless assumed a title there
inconsistent with his associated rank in Egypt. The Cyrenaeans
would have been offended that the second in command of
Egypt should assume their sovranty ; in any case it would have
been a direct absorption of the royalty of Cyrene into the
' Justin xxvi. iii 'Per idem tempus rex Cyrenarum Magas decedit, qui ante
infirmitatem Beronicem, unicam filiam, ad finienda cum Ptolomeo fratre certamina
filio eius desponderat. Sed post mortem regis mater virginis Arsinoe [of course
Apama], ut in vita se contractum matrimonium solveretur, misit qui ad nuptias
virginis regnumque Cyrenarum Demetrium, fratrem regis Antigoni, a Macedonia
arcesserent, qui et ipse ex filia Ptolomei [Soteris] procreatus est. Sed nee
Demetrius moram fecit. Itaque quum secundante vento celeriter Cyrenas advo-
lasset ; fiducia pulchritudinis, qua nimis placere socrui coeperat, statim a principio
superbus regiae familiae militibusque impotens erat, studiumque placendi a virgine
in matrem contulerat. Quae res suspecta primo virgini, dein popularibus militi-
busque invisa fuit. Itaque versis omnium animis in Ptolomei filium insidiae
Demetrio comparantur, cui, cum in lectum socrus concessisset, percussores
inmittuntur.'
^ Porph. Fr. 4, § 9 in Muller, FHG iii. p. 701.
INTRODUCTION xxv
crown of Egypt, whereas the dynastic rights of the popular
Berenike were to be preserved, so far as possible, intact ^ More-
over, Euergetes must have been obliged to hurry to Cyrene,
and to remain there in charge of the disturbed and doubtful
throne. It was, I believe, against the habit of these associations
in the sovranty that the associated prince should be sent to
govern a distant province or dependency. Though the old
Pharaohs had called their eldest sons ' prince of Kush,' I cannot
find an instance where the associated crown prince of Egypt was
called prince of Cyrene, of Cyprus, or of Palestine.
My reply then to the question for which an answer is im-
peratively demanded, is simply this : In the year 27, or perhaps
28, of Philadelphus' reign, his son, the crown prince, was called
to an independent control, probably with the title of king, by
the people of Cyrene ; owing to which his title as associated
prince of Egypt was abandoned, being probably contrary to
court etiquette, as it certainly would be to the susceptibilities of
the Cyrenaeans ^.
^ Thus in the inscription of Adule, in which Euergetes enumerates all the
provinces of the empire which he inherited from his father, Cyrene is (no doubt
studiously) omitted.
^ Strange to say, there is another consideration, overlooked hitherto, which helps
to remove the difficulty occasioned by the delay in Euergetes' marriage till he
became King of Egypt. In most other monarchies a suitable bride is found for
the crown prince as soon as he is of age ; in Ptolemaic Egypt I have observed
with surprise that this is against the practice of the court, though the reigning
Ptolemies marry as early as possible. Philadelphus, though grown up in 290 e.g.,
does not apparently marry till his assumption of royalty, in the opinion of some
critics, not till his father is dead. Euergetes, though long grown up, seems to have
no wife till his accession. Philopator, succeeding at about the age of twenty-four,
has no wife till some years later. We hear of no wife of Euergetes II till he
succeeds in middle life and marries the widowed queen. So it is (with one
exception) down to the case of Caesarion, who would doubtless have been
married before his early death, but for this curious court tradition. A satisfactory
d
xxvi REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
A few words will suffice concerning the other dates occurring
in the papyrus, and appended to those earlier documents, which
are cited as standing orders. The royal rescript ordering the
transmutation of the EKTH from a privilege of the temples into
a gift to the queen is dated in the twenty-third year of the reign.
In order to discover the average yearly value, the tax produced
explanation of it I have not yet found. But the following suggestion is worth
making upon this new problem. Among the later Ptolemies we hear of a daughter
succeeding, because she was the only legitimate one (17 p-ovr) yvrjo-ia ol tS>v naiSav fjv,
Paus. i. 9, § 2), whereas there were younger children of the same parents who
must have been equally entitled to succeed but for their age. I have often
puzzled over this statement. It now seems to me intended to point out that
the child in question was the eldest born after her father had succeeded to
the throne, and that previous children born of the same mother were regarded
as voQoi. when the question of the succession arose. In the corresponding
passage of Strabo (xvii. i, § 11) it is even stated &v fiia yvr^a-ia ij npfo-^vTanq, k.tX.,
which, I think, should certainly be emended to 17 ov Trpea-fivTarri, ' who, though not
the eldest, was the only legitimate heiress.' The text as it stands seems to me
to have no point whatever. If this be so, there were obvious reasons why a crown
prince should not marry. All the children begotten before his accession would be
technically illegitimate, as not being the offspring of an actual king and queen,
and the danger of having such elder children about the court was, of course,
very great. Perhaps this explains the (false) declaration of the court poets
that Philadelphus was marked out for sovranty while still in his mother's womb.
Thus, too, we might find some reason for the apparently tyrannous act of
Cleopatra III, widow of Euergetes II, who, when she was compelled by the
Alexandrians to associate her eldest son (Lathyrus or Soter II) in the throne,
compelled him to divorce his wife and sister Cleopatra, who had already borne
him two children, and marry her younger daughter, Selene. These two children
disappear from history, as if they had no right to the throne, unless, indeed,
Auletes was one of them, and he is always spoken of as illegitimate. Without
the aid of some hypothesis of this kind we cannot understand the monstrous and
absurd facts retailed for us out of all logical connexion by the remaining histories
of the Ptolemies. It is not improbable that Ptolemy Apion, who ruled for many
years undisputedly over Cyrene, was an elder son of Euergetes II, borne to him
by a Cyrenaic or Egyptian princess during his sovranty there, and whom he left
behind in control, when he became King of Egypt in 146 B.C.
INTRODUCTION. xxvii
in the previous years (cols. 36, 37) is to be ascertained. We
know from independent sources that the deification of Arsinoe
Philadelphus was gradual ; that she attained divine honours first
at one, then at another of the Egyptian temples. The establish-
ment of a canephoros or eponymous priestess in her honour, at
Alexandria, which dates as far back as the year 19 of the reign,
according to demotic documents, appeared to be the climax or
consummation of this gradual apotheosis. We now know that,
practically at least, the process was not complete till the king's
twenty-third year, when she absorbed one of the great revenues
of all the Egyptian gods.
\ 3. Subjects treated in the Document.
Having determined the date we approach the contents of
the text. What is the subject ? Clearly the taxing of the
country. We know from many literary sources that the land of
Egypt was in a great measure regarded (even in old Pharaonic
days) as the personal property of the sovran \ and that in no
kingdom of the Hellenistic epoch was the Exchequer more
carefully attended to, or the income of the king so great. The
Ptolemies always appear in the history of those days as com-
manding enormous wealth. Even queens and princesses have
such fortunes that they can raise armies, and carry on wars
on their own account. There can only have been two sources
of such wealth — commerce and agriculture. For it does not
appear that the gold mines of Nubia afforded any considerable
portion of the royal revenue ; had such been the case, we should
have found a much wider use of gold coinage than existed in
Ptolemaic Egypt. The largest item in the exchequer was
doubtless the revenue derived, not only from the taxing of
' Cf. the account of the matter in Genesis xiwi. 18-26.
da ^l^ii
xxviii REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
produce, but from its regulation. The Petrie papyri have
already made us acquainted with a variety of imposts, such
as salt-tax, police-tax, grazing-tax, and even occasional benevo-
lences called crowns (the Roman aurum coronarmm) presented
to the king as a gift, but a gift extracted from the population
by compulsion.
The present ordinance (putting aside the most mutilated
columns and the fragments recently acquired by Mr. Grenfell)
is concerned with only two of these sources of revenue,
but we may well believe that they were two of the most
important : the first is the tax upon vineyards and orchards ;
the second that upon oil, or rather the revenue from the mono-
poly exercised in the case of that indispensable article of
Egyptian diet. As the revenues both from wine and from oil
were farmed out to middlemen, the present Revenue Papyrus
is concerned exclusively with the regulation of these contracts
with the State. In both cases it is very likely that the
Ptolemies merely adopted and regulated the practice of the
Pharaohs ; nay, in the former, they only extended a policy long
since adopted by these kings ^ There had been a time when
the ' Established Church ' was so dominant as to secure
enormous estates and revenues from the Crown. The inventory
of the property of the temples of Amon in the Harris papyrus ^
and the fact that the twentieth dynasty was one of sacerdotal
kings, whose first interest was the exaltation of priestly influence,
show us plainly enough that the Egyptian corporations of priests,
' On this point I feel some hesitation, as the regulations concerning oil
(col. 49) seem to imply that the monopoly was an innovation at this very
time. Otherwise there could hardly have been private oil-presses recognized
as existing, without being contraband.
^ Cf. A. Erman's Aegypien, p. 405 sqq.
INTRODUCTION. xxix
like the mediaeval Church in Europe, had gradually absorbed
a great part of the property of the State. But the reaction had
set in long before the Ptolemies supervened. Successful soldiers
who became kings had begun to strip the temples gradually of
their estates, and there is not wanting direct evidence of the
remonstrances and complaints of the sacerdotal corporations.
Every successful usurper began by restoring lost revenues to
the priests in order to purchase their powerful support ; every
established dynasty proceeded to exhibit its security by in-
vading the privileges of this order. Thus we know that the first
Ptolemy admitted the claims of the priests to large revenues in
the Delta, near the Sebennytic mouth of the river— revenues,
too, which they claimed as the gift of a previous usurper ^. The
present papyrus contains a step in the contrary direction ; for we
know from it that in the twenty-third year of the second Ptolemy
the share of one-sixth of the produce of all the vineyards and
orchards in Egypt, hitherto given to the gods of Egypt, and
apparently delivered by the husbandmen at the nearest temple,
was claimed by the queen, in consequence of her deification.
The stele of Pithom and that of Mendes commemorate, it is
true, vast gifts of money from this king and queen to the priests.
Very probably this may have been regarded as a sort of com-
pensation ; but the change of the ecclesiastical property from
revenues or charges on the land of the country into a yearly
grant or syntaxis from the Crown must have been felt as a loss
of dignity, and probably of wealth. For whenever the Crown
fell into pecuniary difficulties, the syntaxis could be diminished
or refused ^. It is very likely that the national insurrections, so
^ Cf. the text translated in my Greek Life and Thought, &c., p. 176 sq.
^ Thus the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland received for their College at
Maynooth a yearly syntaxis of over £26,000 from the British Government up to
XXX REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
frequent under the later Ptolemies, were aided by priestly dis-
content at this subordination of their wealth to the Crown,
The very command to furnish an inventory of sacred property,
such as the king here issues (col. 37. 15-7), must have appeared
a gross insult to these proud conservative corporations.
Such however being the case, we may be certain that the
bulk of the duties to the local temples were paid not in money,
but in kind, and this ancient and once universal form of tax
makes the institution of tax-farmers, under a centralized
government, almost a necessity. And the State, in contracting
with private individuals or with joint stock companies, allows
them a certain profit for the cost and trouble of collecting such
taxes, and is content to take from them a fixed income. This
income in the instance before us was not indeed fixed for
more than one or two years, but in every recurring case it was
settled by public auction, the State selling the right of collection
and sale of the produce paid as tax, or even of money taxes, to
the highest bidder. It is easy to see that many precautions
were necessary to secure the State against loss. Then
as now, dishonesty towards State charges, especially if they
be felt oppressive or unjust, is regarded as hardly an offence
against morality, or at most as a very venial offence, and so
a very careful householder, such as the Egyptian sovran, had
need to protect himself The most obvious policy was to
play off each of the parties concerned against the rest. There
were three separate interests to afford scope for this diplomacy.
the year 1870, but they were quite content to take fourteen years' purchase of it
then in a lump sum, which brought them in only half the yearly amount, in order
to attain security in their endowment, and an escape from inquiries in Parliament
and by Royal Commissions: they also feel just as much at liberty to abet the
national aspirations against the Crown as the Egyptian priesthood did.
INTRODUCTION. xxxi
First come, naturally, the Government officials in each district,
who must not be allowed to have any private pecuniary interests
to conflict with their loyalty to the king. Secondly come the
contractors Nvho undertake the collection of taxes. They
must be rich men, at least men who can find good security to
guarantee the State against loss, and such men must on the one
hand be induced to come forward by allowing them considerable
profits, and hence promoting competition for the contract,
whilst on the other they must not be allowed to damage the
State by combining to bid low at the auction, or again by
extorting from the population more than was due to the State.
Thirdly, the taxpayer must be protected from oppression, and
also punished for dishonesty to the State, by allowing ■ stringent
inquisition into his produce in the latter case, facilities of appeal
to an umpire in the former. Such are the general lines of the
legislation before us.
§ 4. Division of Subjects into Chapters.
The first chapter or division (A), cols. 1-22, so far as we
can understand its mutilated text, contained the regulations
governing the relations of the Government officials in each
district, particularly of the OIKONOMOC and his deputy or
ANTirpAEYC, to the men or companies of men who undertook
the farming of the revenue. It appears from col. 15 that no
such official was allowed to take any such contract, either per-
sonally or through his slaves — an obvious precaution which
separated at once the official from the tax-farming class. In
this chapter the regulations seem to be quite general ; no
special tax is even once mentioned.
The second chapter (B), contained in cols. 23-37, is far more
definite, and contains the orders and regulations for the trans-
xxxii REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
mutation of the share (AHOMOIPA) of one-sixth of the produce
of all the vineyards and orchards of Egypt, hitherto paid to
gods of Egypt, into a Government tax, payable to the deified
queen Arsinoe Philadelphus. The just assessment and collection
of this tax must have been very difficult ; for much of it had
been paid to the local temples ; the produce of wine is always
very variable : the new form of the tax must have been
unpopular ; the State is therefore not satisfied with a statement
under affidavit from each cultivator, but authorizes the farmer
of the tax to watch the vintage, to pry into the profits, and to
secure both his own advantage and that of the State. This
supervision of the actual gathering of the crop is likely to
entail great hardships on the cultivator, for the inspector may
not attend when the time of harvest requires the crop to be
saved, and may exact bribes from the peasants either for his
prompt attendance or for an estimate favourable to themselves \
These contingencies are provided for here, as they are not in
modern states which levy similar taxes, by permitting the
peasants to gather grapes and make wine under protest that it
cannot be delayed, and transact the payment of the tax directly
with the Government officials. For the details I must refer
the reader to the commentary.
Wherever this share of the gods (ATTOMOIPA) occurs, we
find coupled together vineyards and orchards (flAPAAElCOl).
This is the case both in the Petrie papyri and on the Rosetta
stone, as well as in other fragments of that period. All the
regulations concerning the making and storing of wine from the
AMflEAflNEC are given us explicitly enough. But when we
come to inquire what was the produce of the TTAPAAEICOI,
* Such is the case now in Turkey, and is, or was, the case in Greece, when
taxes were assessed upon standing crops, before they could be reaped.'
INTRODUCTION. xxxiu
and why they were coupled with vineyards in this tax, we
come upon a serious difficulty. What is meant by the term,
and is our orchard a proper equivalent ? It was adopted by
Xenophon from the Persians, among whom it meant a park
with trees, even large enough for a game preserve. It is
distinguished not only from a vineyard, but from a garden
(KHTTOC) in a document among the Petrie papyri (II. p. 68).
Another document in that series contrasts it with a palm-
grove (OINlKnN), apparently for taxing purposes. Another
specifies a pumpkin-field (CIKYHPATON). What then was
the produce of a paradeisos in a country where very few
kinds of fruit-trees grow? There is but one column (29)
which deals with riAPAAEICOl, without closer specification,
except that here an estimate of the value is to be made in
money, and the sixth paid in money, not in kind. Were it not
for this provision, I should be inclined to hold that the crop
of the paradeisoi which paid the sixth to the gods was no other
than grapes. For we know that in such climates it is both
grateful and convenient to grow vines as creepers on trees and
trellises, and we have in the Petrie papyri (I. xxix.) one distinct
mention of an ANAAENAPAC which is exactly a case in point.
As it is by this established that vines were so grown, how is
it that there is no mention of the anadendras in the present
careful legislation concerning grapes and wine ? Here again
the obvious answer is that such cultivation came under the
title of TTAPAAEICOI, and that the fruit of these orchards
consisted chiefly, if not wholly, of grapes. It seems to me
exceedingly improbable that in a country noted for its very
careful and varied agriculture, any number of different pro-
ducts should be confused under the title KAPTTOC, as in col. 29.
13, without any apparent enumeration. I therefore still incline
xxxiv REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
to the belief that the ATTOMOIPA was a sacred due on wine
only, probably coeval with its introduction into Egypt in
ancient times, and that, as all the succeeding chapter of our
papyrus relates exclusively to oil, so this does to wine. But
as I have not been able to persuade either Mr. Grenfell or
Prof. Wilcken that this is so, and as they do not feel the
difficulty which I have here stated to be of serious weight,
I shall not here press the matter further ^
^ 5. The State Monopoly in Oil.
We now turn to the third part (C) of the papyrus, which
concerns exclusively the State monopoly in oil. It was this
part of the text, which is in a far better state of preservation
than the rest, which led me at first to use the term Monopoly
Papyrus for the whole. But seeing that the growing of wine
and of orchard produce, treated in the second chapter, was
not a monopoly, and that the first chapter is quite general,
Mr. Grenfell thought the word too narrow, and proposed to
call it the Revenue Papyrus. But this term, now adopted, is
really too wide. For so far as we can see, no source of
revenue is anywhere discussed in it which is not levied
through middlemen, through tax-farmers, and in no case are
the officials to deal directly with the peasants, unless the tax-
farmer fails to perform his duties. But for its awkwardness,
the tax-farming, and but for its pedantry, the Telonic Papyrus
would be the most accurate designation.
The manufacture of wine was only under State control in
^the same way that our manufacture of beer and spirits is, for
in both cases there is no limitation of the amount produced
^ At the close of this Introduction the reader will find an important inscription
bearing on this topic discussed. Cf. also Mr. Grenfell's note, pp. 94-6.
INTRODUCTION. xxxv
or the retail price demanded, but an inquiry into the actual
quantity as a basis for taxation ; in both cases the excise takes
care to watch and register the amount produced in each locality
of manufacture, and so far to pry into private industry.
The manufacture of oil was carried on under quite different -
conditions, such for instance as that of tobacco is in some modern
states. For here not only is all private enterprise forbidden, but
the very amount of seed to be sown, the amount of oil produced,
the retail price — all these are fixed with the greatest care.
Importation of oil for trading purposes is strictly forbidden,
and every care is taken to secure a fixed income from this
source for the State. There is reason to believe that there
were other productions laid under this restriction. Papyrus j
is said to have become extinct owing to a private monopoly \
probably introduced to prevent the library of Pergamum from
obtaining it in large quantities or on easy terms. But in
the present case the State takes special care that a sufficient '
quantity of oil shall be produced each year. For this the oeco-
nomus and the nomarchs are bound to provide, and in case of
difficulty in procuring seed the State is even prepared to advance
it to the cultivator, just as in Ulster, thirty years ago, landlords
commonly advanced flax-seed to their tenants, in order that the
crop might be sown in good time. In most Ulster leases of
that day there was also a clause restricting the amount upon
each farm, in the landlord's interest, lest the tenant should
exhaust the land with this crop.
The first point of interest in this section is the total absence
of olive oil. This in itself was no small evidence of the
antiquity of the ordinance, for we know from Strabo that in '
his day the olive was quite at home in the Fayoum, and we
' Strabo, xvii. i, § 15.
e 2
xxxvi REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
may presume that the large settlement of Greeks there during
Philadelphus' reign soon brought this favourite tree from their
old homes into this rich province. But it was only here, and
in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, apparently in the specially
Greek parts of Egypt, that it was even in his day cultivated.
The oils dealt with in the chapter before us are mainly of
two kinds : sesame oil, and kiki, which is our castor oil, made
from the croton-plant, a tall shrub, with a ferruginous glow
upon its dark green leaves, which may yet be seen cultivated
for the. same purpose in Upper Egypt and Nubia. This latter
is, however, a foetid oil, mainly used for lamps. In addition
to these two, which seem to be the principal products,
other kinds are mentioned, viz. colocynth oil, made from the
seeds of gourds ; cnecimim, made from the head of a thistle
or artichoke; and linseed oiP. It is not quite certain how far
the production of these lesser kinds was controlled, but the
chief kinds were certainly both grown and gathered under
State supervision; the oil was made in State presses; it was
sold by the middlemen to the retailers in each village by
auction, and was retailed at fixed prices.
^ We read in Pliny, N. H. xix. 5 (26) 'Aegypto mire celebratur [raphanus]
olei propter fertilitatem quod e semine eius faciunt. Hoc maxime cupiunt serere,
si liceat, quoniam et quaestus plus quam e frumento, et minus tributi est nullum-
que ibi copiosius oleum.' This seems to be the pacj^avfKai.ov of Dioscorides, i. 26,
and is therefore a species of oil additional to all those mentioned in our papyrus.
The variety now called okifera of the Raphanus sativus is still used in Egypt and
Nubia for the purpose. Pliny speaks (xv. 7) of the sesamine, and also of the
kiki, or castor oil, of which he describes the manufacture, likewise of the cnecinum
if we adopt a discarded MS. reading now rehabilitated (I think) by our papyrus.
He calls the cnecus a sort of urtica, a thistle, probably a species of artichoke. The
various aromatic oils mentioned by him and by Dioscorides, and used both for
medicines and unguents, have their parallel in the curious list I have published in
the Pet. Pap. ii. p. [114].
INTRODUCTION. xxxvii
The details of this legislation are amply illustrated in
Mr. Grenfell's commentary, but, as might be expected, many
are the difificulties which arise in the interpretation. For in
all such documents, the most necessary assumptions are those
which every contemporary reader took for granted as obvious,
whereas we have to infer or detect them from stray and casual
allusions.
In the whole of this intricate legislation, intended to secure
the State from loss, the peasants from oppression, the middle-
men from injustice, the restrictions are so precise, the room
for profit on the part of the middlemen so small, that we are
at a loss to know why men of wealth or of credit should
have competed at auction for a business so onerous and
so invidious.
§ 6. The Coinage.
The next question is one constantly suggested in this
papyrus, but which has long agitated the minds of those who
deal with the political economy of Ptolemaic Egypt, and espe-
cially with that of the third century B.C. It is the relation
of silver to copper in the many prices which are set down
sometimes in the one, sometimes in the other. On the compli-
cated questions of the standard metal, the rate of exchange,
and the ratio of weights under the Ptolemies, Mr. Grenfell has
attained to a new solution which seems both simple and satis-
factory, and which, if it be generally adopted, will save the
world from much idle speculation. I shall not here anticipate
his discoveries, but merely refer the reader particularly to this
important feature in the book, Appendix III.
xxxviu REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
§ 7. The Varieties of Land Tenure.
Another interesting question raised by the present text
is that of the variety of tenure in land (cols. 24 and 36)
throughout Egypt. We have first the I EPA TH (which Prof.
Wilcken restored for us in 36. 8), apparently not subject to
the AnOMOlPA, though it appears from the Rosetta stone that
there was a tax of a KEPAMION per aroura due to the State upon
its vineyards, remitted by Epiphanes. Then comes the land
held in KAHPOI, or farms granted by the king to soldiers
(KAHPOYXOI), of which we hear so much in the Petrie papyri.
There is further the land held EN AflPEAl, in gift from the
king. For that this must be the meaning appears plainly
from parallel passages in the books of Maccabees (I. x. 29 ;
II. iv. 31). This tenure, then, must have been either a life
tenure, as opposed to the KAHPOC, which was hereditary, or
must have referred to some other limitation, such as the
produce of some particular crop, or the cession of the taxes
due to the king from a definite estate. Another tenure,
EN CYNTAZEI, is mentioned (43. 12) as distinguished from
EN AHPEAI, but what is remarkable, both may include the
possession of a village, as well as land. This points back to
those cases where the king gave a favourite or a mistress the
revenue of a town as a private gift. Possibly CYNTAZIC means
by commutation of the various imposts for a yearly contribution,
which the people could levy among themselves and pay to
the State. Seeing that the document is corrected according to
the copy of Apollonius the AIOIKHTHC, and that a man of
this name appears in the Petrie papyri as holding this ofifice
in the Fayoum two years later, the conclusion is hardly to
be avoided, that we have before us the copy of the ordinance
INTRODUCTION. xxxix
specially intended for this province, and accordingly that the
KAHPOYXOI here mentioned are those whom we find in the
province in the succeeding years. Hitherto we possess no
definite evidence of such a class elsewhere in Egypt ; the
innEIC KATOIKOI of the next century at Memphis or Thebes
were evidently no landholders in the same sense. It is not
impossible that though KAHPOYXIA is here stated quite gener-
ally among the various forms of land tenure, this particular
colony in the Fayoum may be intended. In any case, the
documents quoted from the twenty-third year of the reign
prove to us that the settlement of the Fayoum was not
a sudden, but a gradual legislation.
The Petrie papyri show us the extension of dykes and
draining operations, and the larger reclaiming of land, which took
place in the province in the twenty-ninth and thirtieth years
of the reign. But the new title, Arsinoite nome, is not known
in the present document, where the word H AIMNH is used,
and this seems also the case with the earlier Petrie papyri.
There is but one fragment among them of the thirtieth year
(according to Mr. Grenfell) which speaks of the nome under
its new name. We may therefore refer this honour done to
the queen, probably in relation to her ceding part of her
property in the fish of the lake for the reclaiming of land, to
the last years of her life, possibly even to an act of gratitude
passed after her decease. The fact of her being deified during
her life prevents our laying any stress upon the curious simplicity
with which she is named. She appears either as Arsinoe
Philadelphus, or still more briefly as H (MAAAEAOOC. But
this absence of titles is here rather a distinction than the
reverse. She appears simply as a goddess, like Aphrodite
or Isis. I have commented elsewhere on the remarkable
xl REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
absence of honorary titles in all the early papyri. The many
grades of the official hierarchy which appear in the following
centuries seem as yet unknown. Not only the king and queen,
but the court officials appear without any cumbrous distinctions
attached to their names.
^ 8. The Burdens borne by Agriculture.
What were the actual burdens of the husbandman, and
what reward he got for his labour, will only be gradually
determined, according as we gain more and more knowledge.
Some of the prices given in this papyrus will help us in
this inquiry. Hitherto our evidence comes either from other
papyri on the same subject, or from ancient historians who
tell us of the condition of other Hellenistic lands. The case
of Syria and Palestine, as we find it in the books of Maccabees,
and in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews'^, affords us the closest
analogies. It may not be considered irrelevant, in a general
introduction like the present, to call attention to these parallel
cases, which will help the reader to appreciate the details in
the present document.
But first as regards parallel papyri. In the Petrie collection
there are several which have only become intelligible since
we have examined them by the light of the present text.
Thus the long list of names, and of sums which are multiples
of seven "-, which I had problematically set down as a taxing
list (P. P. II. xxviii.), I found to be a list of retailers of oil, and
of the amounts which they undertake to sell, in accordance with
the express direction of our papyrus (col. 47. 10-15). Another
(xxxix. (a) ) is concerned with the amount of croton to be sown
' xli. 4 sq.
^ Cf. Mr. Grenfell's explanation of these figures in Appendix III.
INTRODUCTION. xli
on each farm, and perhaps with the seed to be advanced. As
regards the EKTH or ATTOMOIPA on wine henceforth to be paid
to Arsinoe Philadelphus, we have not only II. xxx. (e) and xlvi.,
but the papyrus Q of the Leiden collection, formerly referred
to a later date. There is also P. P. II. xxvii. (i), which states
the wine produce of a farm, and adds the one-sixth on fruits and
garlands of flowers, so that this produce is classed with that of
the vineyard. This maybe the meaning of adding TTAPAAEICOI
throughout section B of our papyrus to the AMnEAnNEC.
There is also an interesting letter, complete (P. P. II. xi. (6) ),
calling upon the oeconomus, or perhaps the tax-farmer, to
attend on the next day but one, when the vine-grower was
going to have his vintage, according to the ordinance in col. 25.
Other coincidences are mentioned in Mr. Grenfell's commentary,
and in the Appendix to Part II of the Petrie papyri he has
made some important corrections, or additions, to my readings
of the fragments just cited. Thus the indirect light shed upon
the early papyri we have found makes it certain that we shall
be able to interpret future discoveries of the same kind with
greater certainty, and ultimately reconstruct a definite and
connected account of the whole financial system of the Ptolemaic
Exchequer.
As regards their external system, we have the curious
narrative of Josephus, already cited, from which it appears that
as regards Palestine and Coele-Syria, the leading notables went
down to Egypt to a yearly auction of the taxes, no doubt
arranging on the way to what sum they would bid. But their
calculations are upset by the young adventurer who offers the
king a far larger sum, gets off giving security by cracking jokes
with the king, and, taking an armed force to help him, demands
higher taxes, confiscates the property (and even the lives) of
f
xlii REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
recusants, and by remitting to the king a larger sum than he
had promised, gains his favour and confidence, and remains con-
troller of the taxes of Palestine for twenty years. Here the
King of Egypt does no more than insist upon the punctual
payment of a sum fixed at the auction ; he gives, however,
military support to his tax-farmer in carrying out any punish-
ment which the latter deems necessary, and even threatens to
take up the land and apportion it among new settlers, if his
claims are not satisfied. But into the details he seems to
make no inquiry.
A very different picture of the taxation of the same province
by the Seleucids appears in the documents quoted by Josephus
from the books of the Maccabees, and dating a century later.
If these documents indeed describe a normal state of things,
we need not wonder that the rule of the Ptolemies was more
popular in Palestine than that of their rivals at Antioch. The
facts come out incidentally in the offers made by rival claimants
to the Syrian throne, who are bidding for the support of the
Jews. Even if the letters cited are not genuine copies of State
documents, there is no reason to doubt that the author of them,
especially in the first Maccabees, described an actual state of
things. King Demetrius (Soter II, in 152 B.C.) writes (x. 29) :
' And now I let you off, and remit all the Jews from the taxes, and
from the price of salt, and from the crowns (the Roman aurum
coronarium '), and what I was entitled to take in lieu of the third
part of the sown crops and in lieu of the half of the tree crop.'
Many more imposts, such as the tolls on visitors to Jerusalem,
are mentioned in the sequel. We have not only these, but
' Cf. also Josephus, A. J. xii. 3, § 3, for a similar letter from Antiochus the
Great to an officer called Ptolemy concerning the Jews. We have here too
Tov ore^aviVou (j)6pov, koI roC ncpi twv dXav (not aX\av, as in moSt texts).
INTRODUCTION. xliii
many other small taxes mentioned in the P. P. II. xxxix. (e) (f)
and in the rest of the collection which Mr. Grenfell is preparing
for publication.
A comparison of the respective burdens which the second
Ptolemy demanded in 260 b,c. and the eighth Seleucid in
150 B.C. is perhaps hardly possible from our evidence. It is
likely, however, that the apparently much greater tax of
50 per cent, on the crop of trees in Palestine may include
the olive-oil crop, whereas this part of the Egyptian revenue
was a seed crop, and, so far as we can see, the cultivator got
a very small share of it. But these details must be left to the
commentator.
§ 9. The Revision of the Document.
The whole document has undergone corrections, as is ex-
pressly stated more than once upon the face of it, and as appears
from various erasures and changes, and in Part C from large
additions. We can also show that this revision was carelessly
done. From internal evidence, explained in the commentary,
and from the curious repetition of a chapter (cols. 59 and 60)
without any apparent reason, Mr. Grenfell was led to an acute
conjecture concerning the whole appendix on the nomes which
ensues. He believes that at this point (col. 58) the corrector
desired to fasten on a supplementary roll, containing the revised
list of nomes, but that he made the mistake of allowing the same
chapter to appear twice, immediately before and after his new
junction. The height of the papyrus, which here changes, is
strongly in favour of this hypothesis. It appears from the
fragments Mr. Grenfell has since acquired that another roll of
the same character contained what we desiderated in Part A,
a general account — besides regulations for special taxes — of the
fa
xliv REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
working of the royal and local banks in regulating the accounts
of the tax-farming.
Unfortunately these fragments are in such a condition as
to make all inferences frorii them hazardous. But there is
one interpretation of cols. 73-8 which is worth setting down
here, as it may suggest a new idea in reading other fragments,
and will probably be established in course of time, if it indeed
has hit the truth. If we were to read the heading AIATPAMMA
TPATTEZfiN IINHC, and consider the whole section as one
regulating the farming out of local banks by the State, under
the control of a central or BACIAIKH TPAOEZA in the capital
of the nome, we should have found a new sort of tax-farming
hitherto unsuspected. The existence of local banks in towns,
and even villages, is made certain by 75. i. The mention
of buying the bank seems also beyond doubt (75. 4), It
would seem quite reasonable that if so many local banks were
required; if it were even necessary to make up accounts in
each village daily, as is not impossible (cf. the difficult passage
57. 15-6), some such sub-letting would be almost necessary
to avoid an endless staff of Government officials, and if it
did take place, it will probably be found that the Jews in
Egypt undertook this business.
It is a sad loss that we have not the details preserved
which seem to regulate the rate of exchange between siiver
and copper (col. 76). But of course if the local banks were
farmed out, such regulations were highly necessary. I had
inferred from the receipts printed in the Petrie papyri (II. xxvi.)
that the bank in (the Arsinoite) Ptolemais did business by
means of agents all through the province. It now seems
very doubtful that this interpretation can be maintained.
The subsequent columns are, if possible, still more disap-
INTRODUCTION. xlv
pointing, for here there were regulations affecting the produce
from flax, both clothes and sails, for which Egypt was so
famous, and which are specially mentioned as an industry
of the temples taxed by the Crown in the Rosetta inscription
(1. 1 8). This text, and the earlier inscription known as the
Canopus inscription, can now be conveniently consulted in my
Empire of Ihe Ptolemies.
§ lo. The Lists of the Nomes.
The problems suggested by the two lists of nomes — the
brief enumeration in col. 31, and the longer exposition with their
respective burdens in cols. 60 sqq. — are many and interesting.
For they do not agree with the earlier and later Greek
enumerations — those of Herodotus^ and of Strabo, still less
with the older Egyptian, or the later Roman, as given by
the coins of the nomes under the Antonines^, and by Ptolemy
the geographer. It is certain that there were frequent changes
in the limitation and arrangement of these counties, as we
might call them ; the two lists before us are written down in
the twenty-seventh year of the same reign, and yet they show
some notable discrepancies. It is not therefore surprising
that Herodotus, visiting Egypt some i8o years earlier, and
Strabo some 240 later, should not agree with either. It
was not, moreover, within the scope of Herodotus' account to
give an accurate list. We therefore are not surprised that
Herodotus, specifying the nomes in which the military caste
dwelt (ii. 165), gives only nomes situated in the Delta and
' All that is to be known concerning Herodotus' list has been gathered by
Wiedemann in his excellent commentary on the historian's Egyptian book (II.),
pp. 574 sq. and the references there.
^ Cf. Coins of Alexandria and ihe Nomes, published by the British Museum.
xlvi REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
the Theban district. But from Strabo we should have expected
the full list ; wherefore the commentators on his account have
either supposed a lacuna in our texts, or negligence in the
geographer, because he names only twenty - four nomes,
gathering all those of the southern country (like Herodotus)
under the Thebaid, though we know that the old Egyptians
counted at least forty. In the most recent atlas of ancient
Egypt (published by the Egypt Exploration Fund) there are
even fifty enumerated. The two lists before us vindicate
Strabo remarkably as regards this supposed omission. They
not only agree with him in specifying twenty-four nomes ; they
also give the Thebaid as the last in the series^- Strabo
therefore must have copied his list from some financial docu-
ment such as this, which recognized the whole southern province
as no complex of nomes, but as one district under the control
of a single governor. It is even easy for us now to lay down
the southern boundary of the financial nomes from Strabo's text
(xvii. I, ^41): 'Then comes the Hermopolitic military station
(^vXa/cjj) — a sort of custom-house for the produce from the
Thebaid — from hence they begin to measure the schoeni of 60
stadia, up to Syene and Elephantine ; then the Thebaic station,
and a canal leading to Tanis^.' The two military posts, one
^ There is an interesting parallel in the second-century inscription in honour
of Aristides (the rhetor), where 01 TON 0HBAIKON NOMON OIKOYNTEC
(unless it only means FTEPI 0HBAC) EAAHNEC are enumerated after those of
Alexandria, Hermoupolis, the BOYAH of Antinoopolis, and the Greeks of the
Delta. CIG 4679.
^ This latter was of course the best mode of irrigating the lower country
above the reach of the Nile, the water being drawn from the river at this remote
point and brought on the higher level thus secured along the Arabian margin of
the Nile valley.
The account of Agatharchides is quite similar (Photius, § 22, in Geog. Grace.
INTRODUCTION. xlvii
to watch imports down the river, the other to watch them
coming up the river, are Hke the custom-houses of jealous
neighbours, such as those of the Servians and the Turks
in the present day.
Having recorded this negative agreement between Strabo
and the hsts in the papyrus, we come to compare them in
detail, both as to the number, order, and titles of the nomes.
All three agree in giving us twenty-four nomes and the
Thebaid. But in the names and the order of the twenty-four
they differ considerably, and the whole number is only made
up in the second list by counting Memphis as distinct from
the Memphite nome. Several of Strabo's names, which we
should have thought of old standing, do not appear, viz.
Menelaites, Momemphites, Phragroriopolites ; but the second
and last of these most probably represent the Libyan and
Arabian nomes of the papyrus. Moreover, Strabo gives names
(Hermoupolis, Aphroditopolis, Kynopolis) to nomes of the Delta
which appear in the papyrus as nomes of Upper Egypt. The
general order, beginning with the western Delta from Alex-
andria, and giving the nomes along each of the three great
outlets of the Nile, then ascending to Memphis and southward
to the Theban custom-house, is the same. So that here the
nominal divergence, which amounts to seven new names, may
not be a real one. But to identify the seven new names
respectively with our lists is not easy.
When we proceed to a closer examination of the two lists
(cols. 31 and 60, sqq.) in our papyrus (I will call them a and b)
Min. i. p. 122, ed. C. Miiller, Didot). From Memphis to the Thebaid there are
five nomes, one of which is called ^ivKaxj], or SxeSi'a, where the tolls are levied. These
are vo\ut\ e6va>v. But then follow a list of jrdXcu in the Thebaid, in which only
one nome, the Tentyrite, is mentioned, and Thebes omitted.
xlviii REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
we find that there are serious discrepancies not only in the
order, but in the names. Were these Hsts handed down to us
in texts of diverse age, we should at once infer that there had
been in the interval a formal redistribution of the nomes. Such
an explanation is impossible in the case of two contemporaneous
lists, unless there were special reasons for the variation in a list
required for the oil monopoly only.
The first difficulty is the absence of the Nitriote nome from
a, or rather of this name, for it probably corresponds to either
a 3 or a 6, both unfortunately mutilated. For the second of
these I conjectured MENEAAIC, i.e. the region about the town
called Menelaos, after Ptolemy Soter's brother. This town was
certainly situated in or by the Nitrian country, but the form of
the ending is without precedent among the nomes, and we know
from Strabo's list that there was afterwards a nome called
MENEAAITHC along the seacoast east of Alexandria. But for
the present I have no better suggestion to offer. There is no
town-name with this ending to be found in any of the geographies
of Egypt. Supposing then that the enigmatical -AAIAI cor-
responds to NITPinTHC in h, where shall we place a 3 ? It
would appear that the clerk of b had absorbed either a 3 or
a 6 in the Libya of his list, and then, finding himself one short
of the official number (24), had thrust in MEMOITei — quite
out of its place, and properly belonging to MEM* El — to fill
it up. There is good reason to identify the A EAT A of a with
the HAlonOAlTHC of b, for Strabo tells us that the apex of the
Delta was especially so called, and Heliopolis is situated close
to it, though on the Arabian side of the river.
There seems no law or assignable cause for the variations in
the order of a and b. At all events, it may be inferred with
certainty that neither was copied from a fixed official list, though
INTRODUCTION. xlix
there was a general consent that the number of nomes, ex-
cluding the Thebaid, amounted to twenty-four.
Thus 5-9, though varying in order, are a group which fairly
corresponds in both, a 1 1 and 1 5 correspond to 6 1 4 and i o.
a 17 and 18 correspond to ^ 17 and 16, except that a 17 adds
Memphis to its nome, whereas b ij gives only Memphis, while
b 24 is the Memphite nome, thus bringing the list of b up
to twenty-four. We now proceed to the country south of
Memphis, a 19 and 24 (EPMOnOAITHC and OZYPYTXITHC)
correspond to b 18 and 19. a 21-24 agree with b 20-23, if
the lost Z»2 3 be, as I think it must be, the Kynopolite. Both
lists end with the Thebaid. It will be found, therefore, that,
with many small transpositions, there is nevertheless a general
conformity between the lists. The occurrence of H AIMNH and
of AIMNITHC in a 22 and b 21 for the subsequent Arsinoite
nome, first revealed to us that the complete re-settlement, and
the re-naming, of that district did not take place till after the
twenty-seventh year of Ptolemy II. Alexandria belonged to no
nome, and had a reserved territory in the Libyan nome from
which it received produce. This reminds us in a general way
of the case of Washington with its territory, which belongs to
no State in the American Republic. The use of the large
terms Libya and Arabia as names of nomes is also foreign
to Strabo and Herodotus, and was probably intended to signify
that the desert limits were in each case unfixed ^- Possibly the
^ In one of the partitions of the empire of Alexander (at Triparadeisus) Ptolemy
was granted Egypt and the adjoining countries, especially whatever he could
conquer to the west. Hence to claim Libya in these lists may even have had
a political origin. In Theban papyri of the next century, such as the Turin
papyrus VIII and the B. M. CCCCI, we find Arabia and Libya used simply for
the east and west banks of the Nile.
g
1 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
occurrence of the special titles Libyarchs (in this papyrus)
and Arabafchs also points to the fact that there was here
a military officer instead of a nomarch, as there were certainly
desert marauders to be kept in order by what are called in the
Petrie papyri EPHMOYAAKEC. I append the two lists, and
Strabo's enumieration, of the nomes, for the convenience of
those who desire to verify, without trouble, what I have said.
The figures after the names in the third list indicate where
these names occur in a and b.
Col. 31 (a).
1. AIBYH
2. CAITHC
3. [rYNAlKO?]nOAlTHC
4. npocxiniTHC
5. AePIBITHC
6. ?]AAlAI
7. AEATA
8. CEBENNYTOC
9. BOYCIPITHC
10. MENAHCIOC
11. AEONTOnOAITHC
12. CEePniTHC
13. OAPBAieiTHC
14. APABIA
^ In the Delta, and not to be
belongs to Upper Egypt.
Strabo, xvii. § 18 sqq.
MENEAAITHC
Col. 60 sq. {b).
CAITHC CYN NAY
KPATEI
AIBYH nACH XnPIC CEBENNYTOC (8, 5)
THC AtOriPICMENHC
npocnniTHC
NITPIHTHC
CEBENNYTOC
MENAHCIOC
BOYCIPITHC
AePIBITHC
HAIOnOAITHC
BOYBACTITHC KAI
BOYBACTOC
APABIA
CEGPniTHC
TANITHC
AEONTOnOAITHC
EPMOYnOAITHC^
AYKOnOAITHCi
MENAHCIOC (10, 6)
AEONTOnOAITHC (ll, 14)
BOYCIPITHC KAI BOYCI-
Pic (9, 7)
KYNOnOAITHCi
A9PIBITHC {5, 8)
npocnniTHC (4, 3)
A*POAITOnOAITHCi
0APBAieiTHC (13, 15)
TANITHC (16, 13)
TYNAIKOnOAITHC
identified with the same name in the other two lists, which
INTRODUCTION.
li
Col. 31 {a).
15. BOYBACTITHC KAI
BOYBACTOC
16. TANITHC
17. MEMITHC KAI
MEM<1>IC
18. AHTOnOAITHC
19. EPMOnOAITHC
20. OZYPYrXlTHC
21. KYNOnOAITHC
22. H AIMNH
23. HPAKAEOnOAITHC
24. AcDPOAITOnOAITHC
GHBAIC
Col. 60 sq. {b). Strabo, xvii. § 1 8 sqq.
«t>APBAieiTHC MAMEM<1)ITHC
AHTOnOAITHC
MEMIC
EPMOnOAITHC
OZYPYrXITHC
HPAKAEOnOAITHC
AIMNITHC
Act)POAITOnOAITHC
[KYNOnOAITHC ?]
MEMcDITHC
GHBAIC
NITPiriTHC (? 4)
(UArpnpionoAiTHc
BOYBACTITHC KAI BOY-
BACTOC (15, 10)
HAIOnOAITHC (? 9)
AHTQnOAITHC (18, 16)
HPAKAEnTHC (23, 2o)
APCINOITHC (22, 21)
KYNOnOAITHC (21, 23?)
OEYPYrXITHC (20, 19)
eHBAIC
§ 1 1. Conclusion.
Such are the general considerations which the reader may-
carry with him to the closer study of the text. We cannot
claim for it an universal interest such as that aroused by
the discovery of lost classical works, or of copies of known
literary masterpieces exceptional in their antiquity. But to
those who desire a closer insight into the great and highly
civilized empire of the Ptolemies, and the causes of its extra-
ordinary wealth, such documents as this are of inestimable
value. For they supplement and correct the vague statements
of ancient historians, as well as the theories whereby modern
scholars have sought to explain away their inconsistencies and
obscurities. Moreover to the student of Hellenistic Greek,
of that common dialect which pervaded the civilized world
Hi REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
for some centuries, such a document affords great additional
materials, both in vocabulary and in syntax. It throws new
light upon the contemporary documents known as the LXX
translation of the Old Testament, and tends to corroborate
the dubious traditions of their origin. From all these points
of view, the present papyrus affords a supplement of vast
importance to our knowledge.
§ 12. Appendix on an Inscription from Telmessos.
There is but one inscription of this period known to me which
bears upon the subjects of our papyrus, but its relation to them
is so intimate, that I can hardly avoid quoting it here. It was
first printed in the Bulletin de Corresp. HelUnique, xiv. 162.
BAjCIAEYONTOC niOAEMAlOY TOY niOAEMAlOY KAI
APCINOHC GEr^N AAEA A.
[• -Val ]
The rest lost.
eav 8e nvas t(ov 7r€7rpafi€[va)v covcov ] Col. 2.
fiovX7]Ta.[L\ 7rft)X[ei]y avvOel ]
€iv TTjlv 7r€]Trpa[fi€vr}u ]
KaL e^[e(rTco ]
01 Se [ ]i 5
T019 [ ]
y^yi ■ ]
The rest lost.
[rJTjf 8[e '/]iv[o]iJ€i{r}s Trpjoa-oSov rats covais Col. 3.
[K]vpi€va[o]v(riv oi [ai>Tiy]pa(j)ei.s ol Karaara
6€Vt[€]s V7r[0 TOV OlKOv]op.0V
Some lines lost.
]av e/c 7ro[. .]t[
jH Xoyevfj.aTa[ 5
B
REVENUE LAWS
}7ri7rT7]L V7ra[
]ou €is ras €Lcr[
The rest lost.
Col. 4. [qn,€\po\eyBov Xoy[€v]araii[eu . . €vto]s rjfiepcov X
[eau] Se wXeiovs [Tco]y T[piaKOVTa.] r]/j,epcou
[€7re])(Q)cnu €7rLX[eX]oye[v tco]v irXeip
[va)]v ra aua[ ]
5 [. . .]M ]
Some lines lost.
]va[
]va KUL ra 7ra[
] Kara tov v[op.ov
] TTjL avrrji olk[
lo a]yopacras [
The rest lost.
Col. 5. eau fie €i[s; to fiaa]iXi.Koi' ^aivcavTai o(j)€iXovT€9
TTpos pepos VTrap^erco Kai tols KaTa8[t]Kaa-ap.e
VOLS rj 7r[p]a^c9
AI[ ]CIC
5 [ ]k[ ; ] Twv Ka
[ ] OLKOVOpLOiL
[ ]vr]s
The rest lost.
Col. 6. e^ea-Tco tois 7rpia[p€v\oLs irapa tcov eiriXo
yevaavTcov Xa^eiv p[ri\8e eav evTos toov
TpiaK0VT[a rjpepcov] rji
[ea]v 5[e ]pev[ ]
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
i ]a 5
[ >
The rest lost.
/cat fxapTvpcov to 8e erepov aa(l)payi(rTOV Kai Col. 7.
ra [ofoJ/Ltara rcuj/ TTpayfiaTevo/Jbevayv ety rouy
Aoyouy ypa(f)€Tco(7[a]u 7raTpod[ev] Kai TrarpiSos
Kai Trepi tl eKavrj\f Kai oi KOivcoves co[ ]
[ ]v firjdei/ avev to[v oikovo/xov]
[t] tou avTLypaipecos Xap^avtTwaav ]
Some lines lost.
[ OL t]7]u (ovrjv e-)(ovTe[s ]
I. o av[TLypa(f)€V9 ecos a.v[ ]
15 [ ]
[ ] Kai OL €(j)o8oL KttL OL Xolit[ol OL TTpay]
'\fxaTevop.evo]L Tag coi/a? eau tl t^ ]
[. . . . eav 8e] tl apev tov avTiypa[(l)e(os]
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
Xaficocriv r) irpa^avres fJ-rj aJ^^veveyKoxn] Col. 11.
Trpos Tov avTiypa(f)ea a7ro[TiueTco(rai>]
€is TO ^aaiXiKo[i> 7rev]TT]K0v[Ta . . . .]
[o 5e a\vTi'ypa(j)[ev9 ]v
Some lines lost.
[ aTroTLueTco(r]av 5
[. . . . Kai TO jSXafios ir€v]Tair\ovv
[oL 8e irpiafieuoi Tas cov]as fir) avaeus eau Tiv[a] Col. 12.
Xaficoai irpaypaTevopeuov Kai prj irapa
8e8op.ev[o]v ev ttji ypac^rfi a]v[aye]TOi)(rav eiri
TOV fia'aiXea Trp]oTepov r] IfiXa^-qvat Ti]va vir avrov
eav 8e ]eiO'0[ Treirpayp-aJTevpe 5
vov [ ]««
Some lines lost.
REVENUE LAWS
15
eiTL
TTjV
Some lines lost.
]ra[.
.]aaTq[
.]ficoi Xo[ye\vTai[s rj VTnjpleraLS Kat
Trjoeicr^o) aTro t{-)v \Xo-Yev]^aToov
0] yLiaOos [X\oy€VT[r)L eKa](TTCi)t tov
jxrjvos 8pa]^fiaL rlpLlaKoiflTa vir\r]pCTaLS
TOV fxrjvos 8pa)(fxaL e]iK0<7t [(rvfifio]Xo(()vXa^i
. . . . 8pa^p\ai 8[eK]a'!r[€VT]e e(f)o8a>L eui
Ka]Ta fir]va 8p[a])(iJ.aL CKarov
Col. 13. [o(rov]s 8[e 8]ei KaTaaraOrjvat ei$ eKaarrjv covqv
Aoy[e]yra? /cat virrjpeTas Kai crvixl3oXo(f)vXaKa9
8Laypa\j/aTco o re o[i.]K[o]vofJi.os Kai o av[TLypa(p€Vf]
fJiera tov apx[(ouov]
5 ocrat 8 av (ovat e[
8[
Some lines lost.
Some lines lost.
Ka[ ] TOV ap)(\fi)vr]v . . .]
t[ ]aKOTe{s . . .]a>
a[ ] pi'q8€ oi[ ]
to vo\ KOL\vOi)V€LT[a(7a]v
Ml
r]ar]L tl
](OV OS [8 av] TTOtrj
a7roTi]a€i [us to] l3a[(n]XiKov 7^ e
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
KUL efi ] lo
OS 8 av Tvapa T\a.vra -q a]yop[a(Trit] rj fier[ ]
7] p.€Te-)(r]L [7rpaxdr)a€]Tai i^\ya]s TpiaK[ovT]a
Kai rrjL eiTLg-[ o av] yL[vri\Tai
KaL o 8ceyyva)[fJL€vos eav . .]tj p.r) 7rap[a8€] 15
^rjrac KOLv[a)vas . . . .]os fir} 8L8coa-LV
a7roT€i[aei ety to fiacriXiKov [fxv]as X Col. 15.
Plate II.
[ol] 8e fJLT] cov€[i]adcocrav p.r]8€ Ko[Lva>v]et.ra>(rav prj8[e 8l]
[e\yyva(Tda>[(ra]v
[. .]ocroL TL TCOV ^aaiXiKcov 8ioiKo[v(ri Kai 01 \prj\
[p.aTi(T]Tai Kai o e[i\aaycoy[evs ]
About 8 lines lost.
T\ ]
SovXos [8e €1 8e prj Ko]
8 REVENUE LAWS
Xa^ea[9(o ]
av Si.a(f)gp[ a7ro]rio-ei 8p[a)(fjias .]
loHPASIC TEAfON
OL Trpia/xevoL ray co[vas Trpacr(r]eadco(ra[u tovs^]
UTToreXei? Trau t[o ]« ef Ta>[v vo]fJMi>
eau 5e ti Trapa ra y[eypap-iie]ua 7roL[r)(rco]aiv
aTroTtveraxrav ei[y to fiacriXiKov t^] y
15 KUL ra TeXr] oaa ay [eXXnrrfL ] eau [/lit/]
ypayJACoai ev tols Xoy[oLS eu rjp^epaLS TpLa]KOVT[a]
2nd AIAAOnCMOC
hand. ^ c*
Col le [oi-a]XoyL^€cr6a) 8e OLKOvop,os Kai [0] a[u]TLypa(f)€v^
Platelll. TT/Joy tovs ray covas €^ovTa[s Kad €Ka](rT[ov]
[ixr}v]a irpo Tr]9 SeKarrjS L(T[Tap.evov ire]
5 [pi Tcou] y[ey]evr}fxev[co]u eu t[coi eTravco )(po]
[vcoi ]
About 7 lines lost.
[• • •]«[
a
ra 8 €v TOIL eve[(TTCoTL firjVL yeyepr]p,€]u(ot)
p.r] TrpocTKaTal^^copi^eTaxrav ety T]r]i> €[7r]ava)
10 ava(j)opav nrjSe [p.eTa(pe]p[eTcoaav\ e^ erepcov
eis erepa p.r]8 et tis tco[p XoyevTcojv 77 tcov
v7n]peTcov airo rrjs TrlpoaoBov] Tr}9 covlrj^]
Xaficov Tt SiopdovTUL p.7)[ To]vTO e[t]y [to]
• 1810V KaTa^copL^ea-Oco
15 OTai> 8e Tov e^op.evov 8[iaXoyL(rp.oi>] 7rp[£a)]j'raft]
Kai TO irepiov e/c tov eTr[aua> 8LaXoy]iap.ov
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
TTpos Trjv Trpoaohov 7rpo(rX[afjil3av€Tco(T]av Sia
SyXovi/res oaov rjv to ir[epLOv ex] tov €7rauco ^pouov
eav Se o eiravco yjpovos eySetaj/ rjL 7r[ej7roti?K&)y Col. 17.
o 5 €Tna>v einyevrjixa kul a7re[-)(\r]c, o [o]lkovo[ij,09]
7rXt]p€s TO aSieyyvov ix€p[os ttj^] a)P7][s ]
aTTO TOV eTriyevTjfiaTOf t[ ]e[ ]
[ ]Kaaiv eKaaTcoi [ ] 5
About 7 lines lost.
€7r€)(€Ta) [ ]
ToaovTov a[ ] et? 5e [to]
fiaaiXiKou eK t[ ] Trjv ey8[eLav]
mrep avToy {. . . . a[ ]a)
[e^ai/ 8e vaTepov kul e/c [. . . .]co Tijy covrjs e^ r)[s] ^°
TO eTTtyevrjixa ecTTiv e[ySeia] yevr^Tai ecrTco
avTcoi r) Trpa^is tov p[eTeve]y^9€v[T]os €itl
yevrjp,aTOS e/c tchv e[yyvoav\ tcov eyyeypafxp[e]va3v
ewi TTjL courjL ety rjv to [rrepiov p.]€Ty}vey\6r]
TrpoTepov de €k tov av[ a]7roKadL(TTaT(o i5
TO p.eTeveyx&^v oOev p.[eTr)veyx]Or]
Tcou Se SLaXoyKT/xcov ovs qiv 7roLr]](rr]TaL o OLKOvo[p.]os
irpos t[o]vs ray wvas e^ovTas iravTcov avTiypa^a Col. 18.
eKacrTcoli] tcov KOLva)v[a)]v irapa^-qfia 8otco
acppayiaa/xevos avTOS Ka[i] p,q[. .]e[.]/3ay [e-)(\^Ta> Se
Kai avTos avTiypacpa a[(})pa\yL[o-aiJ.]ei>[a)V 7ra]vT(ou
TCOV 8LaXoyi(ra[p.]€uco[v ] S
About 7 lines lost,
r aj7r[o(7j7"eAX€reo 8e
lo REVENUE LAWS
irpos
Ta[i'Tiypa(j)a tu>v dLaXoyyafj-cou Kara ixr]va tov
eTTt [ttj? 8LoiKr](Teco9 TJeray/xeuou kul tov
ey\[oyL(r]T[r]v orau 5]e o Tmrpajxevos \povos airas
10 SieXdiji Traplea-Tcocra]]/ oi ras avas e^ovres iravres
TTpos TOV oiKOv[opov ev] TOOL e^opievcaL prjvi irpo Trjs
BtKaTrjs LaT[ap^vo]v km SiaXoyi^eadco irpos avT0V9
o OLKOvopos ylevLKOv] 8LaX[oy]i(rpov Kat, TiOeis rrjv re
TipLrjv Trjs [TTpoaoBov /cat] o 8ei avTOvs 8L[o]p0a)o-ao-dat.
15 Kai eiS" TavTO [to . . . avevr]veyp€]vov Kai ev ols \povoLs
eKacTTa Kat et [rt airo] jcoy aTr[oTrp]apaTcov 77 aXXov tlvos
evo(peiXeTai o 5[et tov OL\Kovopov irpa^ai Kai to Xolttov
Col. 19. eav TL '7rpoao(j)eLX(ocnv Kai Troaov eKacrTcoL tovtcov CTri^aXXei
Kai VTTO TO pepos TOV evo(f)€iXop[evov] viroypaxj^aTco oaov
Kat
iSiai e^ei Trap avTcov 7} tov €y[yv]ov ev ois xpovois Kat to
XoiTTOv eav Ti 7r[poa-o] ei9 to evo(petXopevov eav 8e prjOev
aXXo e[vo(peLX]r]t crvv[T]a^aTco Tat oiKovopcot irpa^avTa
Trap oy [7rpo(To]([)€iXe[T]ai awoSovvat avTcot OTav 77 eirt
Xoye[vats rj\i 8e oi[KOvopo]s a7ro[5o]r(B ev rjpepats Tptaiv
eav 8 [a7raiTi]6eis prj a7ro8]a)t TpiirXovv aTronveTco
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. ii
ei(nrpa[^aTCo 8 o] eiri T[rjs 8iOLK]r](r€a>s TeTay/xevos i5
/cat a7r[ ]
og-[ot 8 av] Tcov ray covas e^ourcou jirj 8ia\oyicrcovTaL irpos [tov] Col. 20.
o
oiKov[oii.6\v fi[6\v[Xo^ev[ov] tov olkovo/jlov kul TrapaKaXovvT^eys
eiy re to fia[aiX]LK[oi']
a7roT[LV€Tcoa]av p.[vas T]piaKovTa Kai o OLKOvopos o-vvauayKaaaT[co]
About 7 lines lost.
]co avT[ ]
[ ]pi.] t[o]v 8iaXoyiafiov 8oy[ ko] 5
[ra t]ov vopLov
[8ot]co Se Kat, oiKovopos Kai tcov €yy[v7]Tcou e/cacr]
[tcoi] 8iaXoyicrfJLov Ka9 ov ^rj^aov^aLv avT[ov a cu]0e4Ae]
[Tr€7r\pa^6[a\L eav 8e prj Scot- aiTT^deLS av9r]p€po[v rj tt^l]
[vaJTepaiai aSiKCOL wpa^ei €vo')(os ea-Tco 10
t[T]
[8ia]Xoyi^eadcoaau 8e iravTes KaTa TavTa oaoi T[a)v /3a]
[(riX]iKa>v 7r[a>X]r](rov(rLU
CYrrPAOtoN
ot
[oaa 8e ajvyypacpouTUi oiKOvop.oL rj ol avTiypa({)eif 77 oi TT[ap av]
[tiov] ol Ta ^aaL[X]LKa irpaypaTevopevoL Trept tco[u eis tovs] 15
[. . .]us avyKvpovTcov fir) irpaaaeaOcocrav ol TrpaypalTevopevoL]
Tcou avyypa(j)cov pr]8e tcov avp/SoXcov p[r]8ev] Col. 21.
[KA]TE[P]r6)N
[Kada>9 yey]pa7rTaL ev tcol vopcoL tov [oLK]ovopov [....]
About 4 lines lost.
[ Ka]TaaTa6[e ]
c 2
12 REVENUE LAWS
5 ra (TVVTeTayixeva [ aTTOTLve]Taaav
VTrep avTCdv ot KaTaaT[a6evTes . . 7"]a 5e Trpoa
Ti/xa TO. yeypoLfXfxeva elLcrTrpacraecrdcoaai'] oi Treirpa
yparevpeuoi cap p,r] ol K[aT]a(T[Ta6]evTes (jiaiucovrai
avveiSoTes avTois
lo EKKAHTOI XPONOI
ocra 8 eyKXrjpara yiverai e/c t[cou uop^cou] tcov
reXcoviKcov iarw KaXeiadat irepi p[€v ]
OTai> fiovXcovrai virep de tcov XoIlttwv eyKX]r]paT[a)v]
[ocr]a y[i\veTai eK tcov vopcov tcov Te[XcovLKCo]v virep cov
^5 p[- ' •]? Av] eKacTTcoi tcov vopcov aXXo9 xp[oi^o9 e]KK[X]r]Tos:
re
TeTttKTat ecTTco KaXeiadai ev tcol ■)(\^povcoi\ ety ov [ai] TrpoaoSoli]
Col. 22. TreirpavraL Kai ev aXXrjc Tpip[r]]v[iai] eap, p.r] tls tcov tl
KoivcovovvTcov 7] V7n]peTOVVTCo[v] Tr][i co]vrjt Xri[cl>6]r]
p.€Ta Tov yeypappevov )(povov v[ ]
V
[eav 8e tls] tovtco [XTjcfydrji ]
About 4 lines lost.
5 [ ] TCOV [ 7rpa^aT]co
[o] oiKovopos 7rap[a tcov ]pl ■ ■] tcov Kai tcov
eyyvcov Kac tcov [ 1
3rd
hand.
Col 23. r
B. L ]s Ta
[ AttoXXIcovlov tov
[8lOL]Kr]TOV
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
13
^[a(riX€vov\Tos YlToX^fiaLov tov UroXeixaiov
K[aL TOV viov] YljioXjeixaiov erovs k^
[ ]ap[ ]
About 7 lines lost.
[ TOV yLuo]fievov olvov[ ]
[. . . . TTjv] eKTTjv irapa 8e tcou k[ ]
[/ca]t TCOU (TTpaTevop-evoiu Kai roii[p ]
KXr]pov9 7re({)VTevKOTcou kul Trj[f ev ttjl ]
Qiq^aiBi €7ravT\r]Tris kul ocra 8[ ]
8ioiKeiTat T] aip,apiaTov 7rpoTepo[v fi].£&)iKe[iro tt]v]
SeKUTTjU
TCOU de TrapaSetcrayv e^vvTip.i](r€(os TTJis ]
[. . . .]ii€vri9 irpos apyvpiov ttju eKTrjv t[ ]
[. . .](TLV
4th
hand.
Col. 24.
Plate I.
Plate IV.
5
[Yn]EP T[0]Y TPYFAN KAI CYNAFEIN
[ol] 8e yecopyoL tu yevrj/xaTa TpvyaTcoaav
OTav Tj oapa \r]L K]ai OTav apyoavTai Tpvyav
€[7ra7]yeA[Aer]ajcrai' twi Sloikovvtl t]
[tcol €')(ovt]i T7]v covTjv KUi ^ovXofievov eTTl
[Seiv rouy apLTreX](ovas e7n8eiKvvTco[crav]
About 7 lines lost.
[ T019 TTjv odvrjv 7rpiap.e]uois fiya[9 .]
15
Col. 25.
[o]Tav 8e OL yecopyoi oiuoTroieiv ^ovXciovT[ai\
irapaKoXeLTCoaav tov ttjv (ovr)v 8LOLKo[vvTa]
evavTLOv tov oikouo/xov kui tov av\Tiypa^€(os]
14 REVENUE LAWS
7] Tov Trapa tovtcov Kai Trapayevoix€v[o]y oivo
TTOLeiTco o yecopyos Kai fxerpeLTO) tols p.e
rpoLs TOLS eu eKaarcoL tcou tottcov virap
^'^[)(ova]i[v] e^7]Tao-fji€vois kul €a(f)payi
Tois e-)(OvaL Trj[v cov]r]u a7r[o]TiV€Ta)aau
Col. 26. [Trap 0L9 Se 7rpov7rap]xe[i] opyava ol[s] olvottolovctl aTroypayj/aadcola-au]
[irpos TOi'] 8Lo[LKOVu]Ta Trjp couTjv OTav Trav[ ]
About 7 lines lost.
[ ]a 8e[ ]
[ ]v p-eXXaxTLu [airodei]
5 [^aTCoaai'] to e7rifi[X]rjd€i> o-rj/xeLOu aaivels o 8e pir)]
[a7r]oy pay\rapevos rj prj e7ri8ei^a9 ra opy[m,va /cara]
TOV vopov 7] prj Trapaaxcov eis Trapacr(j)[payi(rp.ov ^ov]
Xopevov acfypayiaaadaL r) piq a7r[o]5ei[^ay Tr]v €7n]
PXrjOeiaav a(f)payL8a airoTiveTco tols e^ovcTL [Tr]v]
10 [ai\vriv oaov av TTapa^p-qpa to l3Xaj3os 8LaTLpr}cra>[(r]L
[oa-]a 8 av ol yecopyoL irpoTpvyTqcravTes OLVoiroLy}os [r?7?] avyypa(l)y]f t[o avrtypa]
(j)[ov 8ot]co Tcoi y[e]copycoi, yeLpoypa(^r]cra.[rco 5e] 5
ev TTjL crvyypacpTjL tou opKOv tov ^a[crLXLKOv]
wau ra yevrjpa KaTaKe')(copLK€[vac ev T7]l]
avyypa(j)r)L kul ra TrpooLvoTroLr]0[€VT\a K[ai\
airiojypacpeuTa irpos avrou vtto t[o\v yea)pyo[v\
iravTa K.aTaKe\aipLKevaL kul iirjOev vev[oa] 10
(j)i(T6ai fj.r]8e KaTOirpoLecrdaL ttju 8 €Tepa[u]
[a](f)p[a]yicrafjievov tov yempyov ex^rco OLKouo[pos']
77 o Trap avTOv avvairecTTakpevos X€Lpo-){pa(j)-rf\
[cr]aTco [8]e o yecopyos tov ^aa-iXtKov opK[o]v [jr]av
TO y€vr]p.a a7ro8eSei-)(evai Kac Ta 7rpooiv[o] 15
7T[o]Lr]0evTa uialvTa a7roy€ypa(j)dai Kac Tr]v
awop-oiplav] ttjv Trew . . . IJi[(]i'V^ [8]iKaLa>9
avaye[ypa](pr]KevaL Ta 8e avT[iypa](pa ayy
TrpocreaTco aa(j)payL(TTa Col. 28.
[ ] opJ, ]
About 7 lines lost.
[ TOL9] exovo-t Trjv a)[vT]v]
[ ](o
[eav 8 avTyXeywcTLV ojs nXeov r] eXalaaov] 5
i6 REVENUE LAWS
\yC\veTai eTTCKpiverci} o oikouo/xos Kai o [auri]
'ypa(f)evs Kai Kadori av eTTLKpLdr^L cripplayi^e]
adcoaav
o 8e TeXcovrjs eav Trpos Tiva tcov [yeco]p
lo y(oi> fj.rj (Tvyypa^-qTai, iSovXo/xevov [p-r]] ecrrco
[a]vTa)i TOVTCov r) irpa^is
[ol] 8e o oiKovop.09 T] avTLypa(j)€vs (rvyy[p]a\f/a
[a0\a)(Tav irpos tov yecopyov Kai Kop.i(rap.evo[L]
[Tri]v yL[i>]op,evr]v airop-OLpau eis to ^aaiXiiKov]
15 [KaT]a^copL[a]aTaaai' tols Se exovcriu Trj[v]
[coil]?]!/ T7]u TLp.r]v p.7] vTroXoyetTcolcTau]
[M]H EniMICFEIN
[e]ai/ de tols areXea-i ra viroTeXrj y€vr][pa]Ta
*^°^- ^^' [ ]A[. .] coy ovra tcov arleXcou €7rip,iaycoT[Lypa(j)e(os]
5 [Ka]6eaTr]K0Ta ev tcol tottcol (j)pa^ov[T€S to re]
LKO
avToov ovop.a Kai ev 7]l Kcop-rjt ovaLv Kai 7r[oo-ov Tip-cov]
rai T7]u irpoaoSou Tr]u €v tcol 7rapa[8eL(rcoi Kai eai>]
p,ev evSoKT]i o TeXcovrjf avyypa(prju 7r[. . .]eaOco[(Tav]
avTco[L] 8L7rXy]v eacjypayLO-p.eurjv KaOawiep ev] tco[l]
10 vopwL yeypajTTaL Kai e/c tovtov ttjv [eKJrrju
vrpaaaeTO) o oiKOvopos
[ea]v 8e a[i>]TiXeyi]L irpos Trjv TLp.fiaLV e^ea-Tco
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 17
{t(ol Trfiv (ovqv e-)(0VTL eyX[a]^uv top Kapirov o {8 av]
{€TrL^a]WriL aTrobiBoTCo airo tov efiTroXcofxle]
[vov] KaO r)fjL€pav orav de KOfiiarjrai ■y[€]copy[o]s 15
[o]v eTifiaro to irXeiov eaTco tov ttju
[cc>\vr][v] €-)(ovTOs Trjv 5e eKTrjv airoBoTco o ye
[(o]pyos [T]aiL [oiKovo]fjLa>i eav 8 €k tov Kapirov tov
TrpadevTlos 77 Ti]p.r}aLS p-rj eKTr[€]g-r)i 7rpa^aT[co]
a OLKOvop[os air]o tov ttju [a)]vr]v e')(o{vTo]s Kai [. .] 20
[ ]i dLopdco[(r]af ypay^av
D
i8 REVENUE LAWS
res SoTcoaav tov re yevrj^aros Kai rrjs oltto
fioipa[s] TOP Xoyov Kara yecopyov
20 AnOKOMIZE[IN] THN AnOMOIPAN
OL 8e yecopyoi r[77]i/ yivofJLevTjv aTro/xoilpjav [t]ov
Col. 31. About 7 lines lost.
Plats V. [■ airo]fioLpav ets [to a7ro8o\i\
ou [ a7roTt]u€Tco To[iy ttju (ovrjv]
eypvari ttj? evocfieiXovfxevrjs avTOis a7r[ofioipas ttju]
Tifirjv €fi {lev TrjL AifivrjL Kai tool (laLT[riL Kai ]
5 TToXiTTjL Kai Upoa-coTriTtji Kai K6pi^iT[r]i Kai Mej/e]
V
Xai8i Kai AeXra tov /xe tov X [^■ .]
ev 8e Tcoi CefievvvTrji Kai BovaipiTrji [Kai Mei^S?;]
aicoi Kai AeovTOTToXiTTji Kai Ce0pa)iT[r]i Ka]i ^ap
fiaiT[i]Tr]i Kai ttji Apa^iai Kai Boi'/Qa(rr[ir]7/i Kai
10 Boi;jQ[acr]rG)i Kai TaviTTji Kai M.eiJ.(j)iT[rji K]ai Me/^^et]
Kai ArjTOTToXiTrji Kai ^p/xoiroXiTrji Ka[i 0^]vpvy[^i]
TTji [K]ai KwoTToXiTTji Kai TTji Xi/ivrji [Ka]i H^a/c[Xeo]
TToXiTTji Kai A(f)po8iT07roXiTr]i I- g
[€]v 5e T[r]]i Qr]fiai8i \- e eicnrpa^aTCo [8]e o [oiko]i{o]
i^fJLOS Ta[s] Ti/xas irapa Tcav y€(opy(ov K[a]i K[a]Ta
virep
XfopiaaTco 6ty to fiacriXiK[o]u ttjs covrjs
A
An[OC]$PAriCMATOC KOM[tft
o 8e oiKOvofxos K{a]TaaT[rj\(TaTa) cv €Ka[a\T[rii\ kco
(TtlU) [6 O 01]
KOVo[fJLOS:]
p,r]i aTro8o-)(ia [a]vTOS fie (ov av KOfii^[r)Tai aTro] ^'^ ''['*'' ^'?]
2o a(f) pay lafJia SiSotco tco[i yecopycoi ]
Col. 32. About 7 lines lost.
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 19
[ ]$" (Tvvayo}J^f.v ]
irapeyeTco [Kepafiov] t[(oi aJTroSoxiwt kul [....]
pov earco 8e o Kep[a.]p,os K€pap,ia crreyva [....]
TTOv/xeva iKava tcol oivcol twi crvva[yopevcoL eK r?;yj
covrjs
de oLKOvofios Kai o auTiypa(j)€V9 7rpo[Tepov rj]
Tpvyav Tovs yecopyovs epirpoa-Oev [rjixepais .]
SoTCoa-av T019 yeoopyois TijJLrjv tov [K€pa]ixov o[v]
8ei eKaa-rov irapaa-yeLv eis Trjv aTrop[oipa]v T(a[v]
iSlcov yevTjfiarcov Trjv (rvvTayde[iaav] viro 10
TOV eTTl TT]S SlOLKTjO-eCOS T€Tayp[€UOv] KUL 8[t]
aypa^aTco rrju rip-rju (roty) 8ia Trjs T[p]aTj\e\
[^JT^y Trjs l3aaiXiKr}s rrjs ev tcol vopcoL
[0] fie y€[a)py]os Xaficov ttjv Tiprjv 7rap€[^]eTco /c[e]
[pa]p.ov ap[t](rTov [e]av fie prj Sodrji avTcoL [77] T[i]pr] 15
Top. [peu] Kepapov Trapex^Tco Kopi^eadco Se
airo [Trjsl aTrop[oLpas] r)s fiei avTOv [a]!ro8ovvai,
TTjV Tiprjv A[ ]
O 7]
oivov T\pv] X [A'^ ''"'l\^
airopoiplav ] 20
About 7 lines lost. Col. 33.
[ ]«£ p€veLU [ ]
/cat
oo-oy 8 av p[ ] €7ncrK07r€iT[co o oiKovopos
irapakap^avai[v\ t[ov\ ttjv covqv 8ioiK[ovvTa Kai t]ou
avTLypa(j)ea Kai tov TrapecTTrjKOTa [vir avTov irco]
XeiTco peTa tovtcou fiifiouy tols [ XP^]'^^'^
ev (oc 8i,op6(o(T[av t]ois
T[r]]v (ovr]v irpiapeuois Kad cKaaTou cou av eXey^Ou^cTL] H '?"
/cat t[o fi]Xal3os SnrXovv
oaoL 8e Tcov Ke[KT]r]pep[a)v ap]7reXu)va[s rj] TrapaSeiaovs
20 Tcou ev Tri[L (popoXjoyiai ovtIcou o-vu€t]€[X]ovv ets Ta Le[p]a
TTjv €KT[r]i/ TTpo] TOV Ka[L a7rofii5o]r(acra[j/] T[r}u] eKTr][v]
Col. 34. [tois T-qv (ovrju irpiapevoLS ]
About 5 lines lost.
[oL 8e irpiapevoL ttjv covrjv eyyvovs KaTacTTr]]
[aovai Tcou €(f)€iK]oaTcou a(f) [rjs av rjpepas ay]opaaooa[iv]
ev rjp€pa[is] X Tas 8e KaT[aypa(f)as 7rotrj](rovTat
5 T av[TLypa^]€a 8[La]
Xoyi(raad(o irpos tov ttjv (ovrjv [e^o]i'r[a Kat, rovs] peTO
Xovs KttL €av fx€v eTTiyevrjfjLa 7r[e/)i]r;t [eTnSiaypjaxjra
Tco TOOL re apycavrjL Kai roty pe[T]o[xoi]9 t[o tov] eiri
p.[eT]o
yevrjpaTos eKacTTCOL kutu ttjv {wvrjv') xC^^ ^""1'
fiaXXov Sta rrjs ^aaiXiKrjs Tpaire^rjs eav 8 [ey]8€ta
yevrjrai Trpaa-aeTco irapa tov ap^covov K[aL] tcov
pi[€]TO)(co[v] Kat, tcou eyyvcov Trap eKaaTov t[o] eTrifiaXXou
TTju 8e [7r]pa^i[v] 7rote[£](r^a) eu T[a)i exo]pevcoi euiavTcoi
ev frjL 7r[/)]o)r[77£] TpiprivL{ai\
€a[v 8]€ p[r] 8ia]yp[a]\frr][i ]
About 8 lines lost:
[ ] (ovfji [ ]
[ eav] prj aTro8coi ?[ ]rat tov
TO 8e KoXeLadcoaav ol a8iK[ovp€vot e]av airai
Ttjdeis p-i] airoScoi ev rjp[€pais TpiaKovjra
About 6 lines lost.
o
[• .]<7t>i'€o{^® OTTCoy av yi,v]rjTaL K[aTa Ta yey]papp€va
eppcoa-de LKy AaitrLou e
t[ovs KaTO. TTjv ^(opav fiaaiXiKovs ypappareis
Tco[v vopxov air]oypa(p€LV cKao-fov ov vofiov ypap.
pa[Tev€i TO r]e irXrjOos tcov apovpcov ttjs apTre
Xo[v Kai] 7rap[a8]eia-(ov Kai Ta e/c tovtcov yevrjpaTa
Ka[Ta] yei(^'^
Toi[s Tr]a[pa CaTvpo]v TrpaypLarevofievois (0(ravTco[9]
8e Kai T[ov]f K[Xr)po]vxovf tovs exovras (tovs) ay.7reXa>[i^as]
7] 7rapa[Set,(r]ov[f €]u tois KXrjpois ois €iXr}(f)a(ri irapa t{6\v fia
crtAeftjy /cat r[ou]y Xolttovs Travras tovs KeKrrjfxeuovs
15 afiTreXmvas 17 TrapaSeiaovs r) ep Scopeats e^ouras t] ye
copyovvras KaQ ovrivovv rpoirov CKaarou to Kad av
Tov aTroypa(f)eiv to re 7rA[77]^oy ttjs yrjs kuc tu ye
T-qv
vrjfxaTa kul 8i8ov[a\i t[(o]v yevr][p]aTaiv eKTrju
[Apcr]LVOT]L [£]Aa5[eA]0ft)i et[y] t[7?i/] Ovo-luu /ca[i] ttjv a-'n[o]vb[qv]
Col. 37. About 7 lines lost.
Plate
VII. [. .]etv 8e[ .] ayTiyp[a(f) ]
[fia(nXe]vs TlToXefiaios [roiy aTp]aTr]yoLS Kat rot[y iinrapxoi.s]
[Ka]L Tois r]yep.o(rt kul To[i\s vop-ap^a-is /cat roty Tolirapxp-LS Kai ro]ty
[oiK]ovop.ois Kat Tois avTiypa(j)ev(ri Kai tois fia(nX[iKot.s ypap,p.a]T€vcn
5 [K]ac TOIS Ai0vapxais Kai tols apxL(pvXaKLTa[LS iraai )(a]ipetu
[a]7r€aTaXKap.ev vp.Lv TavTiypa(f>a tov 7rpoy[pap.p,aTOS Ka]6 o 8ei
[(rv]vT€Xeiv ttju ckttjv ttjc OiAaSeA^coi e7r[t/AeAey ovv vfii\v yive
[a6]Q} OTTOiS av yLvqTaL /cara Tavra
eppcocrOe LKy Alov k[.]
10 [oaoi €]xov(riv ap.ireXcovas rj irapaBeiaovs TpoircoL aiLT[LVLOv]v
re
[5t5o]r(Bo-aj/ iravTes tois irapa CaTvpov 7rpayp.aT[evop.evois]
[Kai To]ts irapa AiovvaoScopov T€Tayp,evois €yXoyi[aTais /cara]
[vo]p.ovs X€[i]poypa(^Las r) avToi r) oi StoiKOVVTes rj [01 yecopyov]
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
23
{v\t^9 ra /c[r]77)Ltara avTmv awo Lir) ecoy [Lkm ]
TO re TrXy][6o]s tcov yevrjfiaTwv Kai eis ttolov lepov [e5]t5o 15
[a\av T-qv yiuofieviju €ktt]v kul 7ro[v y€(xi\pywv
ei9 Tas 8vo Spa^fxas raf Xoy[evo]p.€vas
15 aTTO Tov arjaapov Kai riqv \- a [tov KJpoTcouos
crrjcrafMov Kai KpoTcova riprjs r[7?y ei>] tcol
SiaypafifiaTL yeypap-peurjs apyvpiov
Se fxr) Trpaaaeo'dcoaav
aXXcoi de /xrjdevi e^ovcriav e^eracrav 01 y€a>py[oi]
20 TTCoXciv ij[r)T€ arj\(Tafj.Qv p.T]Te KpOTa)[ua]
Col. 40. About 5 lines lost.
Pl''*^!^- [ : .TOV a,^]
[Tiypa](j)e(os 7rap[a tov KOi)iJ.a]p[)(]ov K[ai utto]
(T^p[a]yL(rp.a 8i8oT[(oaau tcoi K]a)pap-^r]t co[v]
Trap e/cacrr[ou] yea)[pyov eAa/3o]z/ eav Se fxri Saxri
5 TO a7ro(r(f)payLBe]Kaypvv \- prj
TOV Se KLK109 Kai koXok[vvtlvo]v Kai iTeXXv)(yLov)
Top. peTprjTrji/ t- X Tr)v be kotvXtjv —
c
€[v A]Xe^ap8peiaL Se K[aL] ttjl AifivrjL TraarjL
KM tov KlKl[os] ^ T-qv 8e KOTvXr]V =
IS TOV ar]aia]pip[o]v Top p€[Tpr)]Tr]u \- prj (kul tov)
Tr]V
{k[l]klos Top p[eT]pr]TT]u [h] p-ii) Kai ira[pe]^ovaiv
or PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 25
i[Kavo]v Tois [^ov]Xoii€VOLS coveia-Oai Tr[a>]Xo[v]vT€S
S[ia ■)^(o]pas eu [irjacrais rats' TroXeaiv [/cat Ka>]fj.ai,s
[ ] g- . fj.[. . fi]eT[p]oLS Tois e^€Ta[cr6ei(riv] viro
[tov oiKovo/xov Kai Tov av]Tiypa(l)icci[s] 20
About 5 lines lost. Col. 41.
(TwreX^ to] (rvvT€T[ayfi€ua] tcol v[6\
fxap)(rji [o oiKOvo]pos Kat o auTiyp[a(j)evs]
aTroSei^aTCotrav fie TOi> (nropou Tcoi 8loikovvti
TT]u covrjv {8i)a tov oiKOUOfiov Kai tov avTiypacpecos
eai> 5e yecofierpijcravTes p^r] evpcoaiu to ttXtjOos
Toov apovpcov KaTeairappievov aTroTivcTcoaau
o re vop.ap^ri\s Kai o TOirap-^rjs Kai oiKovopLOs
Kai o auTiypa(j)ev9 eKaaros tcou a[i]Ti(ou eis p-eu
TO ^acriXuKOV ^ /3 /cat tois tttjv courju e^^ovcriu
T€
TOV ar)crap]ov o e]8eL Xa^eiv avTOvs rrjs ap h ^
TO
TOV Se KpoTColuos] Tr)s ap y- a Kai €7nyevr]p.a
TOV eXaiov /ca[t] tov kikios eicnrpa^aTO) 8e Trap av
Tcov o eTTt Tr]S 8io[i]Kr}(r€(os TfTeypevos e^w opa
€
o 3e oiKOvop.os [7rp]oT€pov r) Trju copau Ka07]K{r])Li>
TOV a[7r]€ipeadai to cnjcrapiov Kai tov KpoTcoua
80TC0 T(oi TrpoeaTTjKOTi TOV uop.ov vopap^rji
eafjL jiovkr)Tai
7] Toirap-)(r]i ei[s] tov aTr[o]pov tov pev a"r]aap.ov
[T-qs apov]pa[s] h 8 tov 8e KpoT[a>]vo[s] Trjs apov
E
26 REVENUE LAM'S
'pas hj fi K[o]fj.[i]^ea0co 8e airo Tiqs akca avrt tov
On the verso of Col. 41, to be read after line 13.
20 [ l'^" voixwv
Tra[. . o-jTjcra^oi' tj K[poTU>va . . . .j
Ta£et o TT)v cavriv ayopq[(Tas K.ai\
ois Trpoo-r[e]ra(crai eLawpa^as "nap avrmv
25 a'7ro8or[aj] eis ovs fbd voixovs X°PV
yrjdrjvaL t[o] ctj [crja/xoj; Kat Toy KpoToiva
o 6e ot/\v yevr/fiaTa eKaaTa /cara yevos
7rpOT[epo]v Kop-i^'eiv Kai (Tvyypac^yrjv iroieKrOaiaav
Trpos t[ov] TTju (ovrjv ^^ovTa Tiqs Tifxrjo-ecos
15 8i7rX[r]v e]o-(f)payio-p.evrjv \y]pa(j)eT(oaav Se 01
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
s
{X]aoL [to]v airopov {ir^oaov €K^a](rTo{v^ KarecrcrTralpKe]!^
V
/car[a] yeuos jJ-ed opKov K[ai\ 7ro[ao](i^) CKacrTOS [tl]
fiaTa[t] Kai (T(j)payi^[€(T9co]aav ttjv avvypa^-qv
crvveir{i(T\(^payL^ea[6](o Be kul o [7r]apa tov vofiap
[xpv (rvv]a7ro(TTaX€is rj T07r[ap^ov] 20
About 5 lines lost. Col. 43.
[.]g-au Kai e/c [tov ]vtos of ]
7rapap.€Tp€iv [euauTio]!^ tcov yecopycov ei[o^ opa]
80TO) Se o vop.ap^r]9 r) o TrpoeaTr)K(09 tov vo
fxov T(ov ap[o]vp(ov tov (rwopov KaTa yecopyou irpo
Tcpov rj avvKO/jLL^ea-dai tov Kapirov rjp.epaLS e^rj 5
KOVTa eav Se fxr) Scol r) /ir] 7ra/jacr^r;rat tovs
yecopyovs ecnrapKoras to ttXt^Oos to 8iaypa(f)ev
Ta
aTTOTiveTCt) TOOL Tr]v covrjv Trpia/xevcot Kai eiri
Tifj.a Ta yeypafjifieva avTOS Se wpacrcreTa) [ir]apa
[t]wv yecapycDV tcov r]7r€L6r]KOTCov '°
[ocr]oi 8 aTcXeis eiaiv Kara ttjv )((opav rj ev 8[cop€a]L
€
[t}] €V crvvTa^L exov(ri{v} Kcofxas koLl y-qv 7rap[afxe]
[T]peLT(o(Tav irav to yevop.evov avTois (rr]aa[po]v
[K]ai TOV KpoTcova Kai Ta Xoma (jiopTia Ta ai^yK]v
p[o]vTa ety ttjv eXaiKr/v VTroXLirop.evoi eLS (n7[ep]p.a 15
TO LKavov Tifxrjv KOfit^op-evot wpos •)(aXK[o]v
TOV IX€V (Tr][(T]apLOV T7]S «/) h T TOV 8e KpOTCOVOS
T-qv ap h y = Tr][s] Be Kv[r]]KOV ttjv ap \- a eav
E Q,
28 REVENUE LAWS
8e fJLT] 7ra p]aix€Tpr)a-CD[crL] 7ra[v to a]riaa[fJL0V
On the verso of Col. 43, to be read after line 2.
20 Tov [h\e bLaypacfiivTos (nTapr)[vat, crr]craiJ,]ov
KM [KpoToci]vos [ei]s aXkovs vojuous Tr[oi7)0-Ot)]
[ai.]v TTiv TiixriaLi' o oLK[o]vofj.09 KM o [a]vTiYpa
(pevs KM t[o\ a-qaaixov /cat tov KpoTcava Traj/)a]
XajxIiavfTUKrav Ttapa rcav ye<))py[a>v]
25 boTO) b[e vo]iJL
Col. 44. About 5 lines lost.
epya[(TTr]pLou] etvai Kai X"/'[°^]^"f'['^^y] CTri(rrjp.a
vacrdcoaav
ocraL 8 ev Scopeai, Kcop.ai fiaiu ev ravTais 8e
eXaiovpyiov fjirjdeu KaOiaTaTcoaav
5 Trapadeadcoaau Se ev eKacTTcoi epyaaTypicot
Kai crrjcrapiov Kat Kporcova Kac kvtjkov tttju iku
vrjv
Tovs 8e eXaiovpyovs tovs €v eKaa-Tcai vopxoi
KaTaraxdevras ixrj €TrtTp€7r{€]Tco(rav eis
10 aXXou i>ofiou fieTaTropeveadali €a]v 8e TLves
p-ereXdcoaii/ aycoyip.oL e(rT[coaa]i' tool re 8lol
KOVVTL TrjV COVrjU Kai TCOL OLKO[l'0]p.O)L Kai TCOL
avTiypa(l>€L
p-rj V7ro8€xe(r0co(aa[v]} 5e royy €[X]aiovpyovf
isp.rjdeis e[a]v Se tls €i8a)f VTroSe^rjrat 77 eirt
araXei^Tojs avrcoi pnq avayayr) aTroTiverco
€[K]ao-Tov [eX]aLovpyov \- T Kai o eXaiovpyos aycoyi
pos €[crra)]
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 29
About 5 lines lost. Col. 45.
[ ] r? [ ]
[t]ov eXaiov fiepi^erco [....] kui aiT[o tov] ye
KaTfpya^oixfvov
vrj/jLaros tov {TrcoXoviMevov) eXaiov To[i\s eXlaliovpyots
^/
TOV fX€Tpr]TOV TOV ScoSeKU^OV h ]v epyacTTrjpicov Kai ttjs KaTacrKevrjs [Kac Tr]a
pa[(r(j)pa]yi^€a6(oaav tu opyava tov apyov to[v XP^^'^^^^^
fT!\a.v\ayKa^€T(i)(Tav Se tovs eXauovpyovs [KaO] rj
fie[pav ep]ya^€[(r\LV a'7roT{e)iveT(o[(r]ai' ety fjLeu
TO ^acriXiKov eKaaros tcov aiTLCou apyvpLov ^ a
va
Kat, eav ti rj covrf ey5e[ia]j' iroirj
o 5e irapa tov olkovo/jlIov K]ai tov avTiypa(j)ecos KaOecr 1°
TTjKcos avaypayf^acrBco T[a o]vofiaTa rcou KairrjXcou
TCOV €v €Ka(rTr)L TToXet o[vT]a)i/ kul tcou fxerafioXcov
e
KUL crvuTa^aaTco 7r/)o[? a]vTovs /iera tcov ttjv wvtjv
TrpayfiaTevo/xevcov 7r[o(To]v Sei eXaiov Kai klkl Xapcfiavov
Kad T)fxfpav
T€s TTcoXeip eu AXe^avSpeiai 8e avvTacraeadcoaav 15
7r/Joy T0V9 ■7TaXLV7rpaT[o]vvTas Kai crvyypa^aa-daxrau
[Trpos] e/ca[(r]r[o]i' avvypa[(f)]r]v irpos p-ev tov9 eu ttjl ^'"[pat]
[KaTa p.r}va irpos Se To]ys e[v A]X€^a[i>8p€LaL ]
About 5 lines lost. ^°1- '*^-
V[7ro To]v OLKOVO/xov [kui tov] auTLypa(j)[ea)S KaT]a-^(opi^ea
6co €LS Trju covrjv
o(Tov 8 av ixa to eis Tif]v [7ra]paKO/jii8iji'
8[L]8oTCO(Tav ano tt]S courjs
TTju 8e (TVVTa^Lv r]v av TroirjacovTai irpos [e\Ka(rT0v eiri
i^ri\pvaa€Tco(rav irporepov rj tov p{yf\va eTriaTTjvai ep.
15 irpoarOev rjpLepais SeKa kul ypay^avTis eKTideTcoaav
to €vpi(TKOv €0 7)p.epa9 8eKa tv re ttji p.r}Tpo7roXei Kai
fv TTfjL K[cop,]r]i K[a]L TOV Kvpw9evTes avyypaiprju iroieiaOco
a[av]
7th [ ]aL 01 (Xaio(o)ipy[oL ]
band. • •
Col. 49. [ '!r]apaXap.^a[u ]
[Tip.r]9] T-qs ye'){pap.p,€vr]s ev tcoi 8iaypap.p.aTi ]
[ 7r]Xetovo[s ]
About 4 lines lost.
5 7-0 ^[ ] epya^l . . . p.r]T€ o]Xp.ovs e/c[ ]
p.rjT€ L7rcoT[r)]pia p.r)Te aXXo purjOev twv ttji €p[yaaiai]
TavTTji (TvyKVpovTCiv TTapevpcaei p.Tq8ep.LaL
€1 5e p,r} airoTivcTwaav €ls p^ev to fiacnXiKov ^ e
Kai Tois T7]v covrju Trpiap.evoif to fiXafios irevTaTrXovv
10 Trap ois 5e irpovirap^eL tovtcoi/ ti aTroypa(f)€ad(oaai/ irpos
Trapa
TOV T7]V (OVrjV 8l0LK0VVTa Kai TTpOS TOV TOV 0LK0V0p.0V
Kai TOV avTiypa(j)e(os ev rip.epais TpiaKovTa Kai cttl
SfiKvvTcocrav tovs' re oXplo]vs Kai ra nrcoTrjpia
01 5e Trjv avrjv cypvTes Ka[i o] irapa tov oiKOvop.ov
15 Kai Tov avTiypa(f)€a)9 p,€T€[v€y]KaTa)crav eis Ta
fiaaiXiKa eXaiovpyia eav 5[e ti]s evpedrji a7]aap.ov
T] KpoTcova 7} KvrjKOv KaTe[pya]^op,evos Tpoircoi
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 33
TO (Tr}(Ta[>,iv[ov\ 1] to KvqKLvov r?) to
oiiTLVLOvv TO eXuLOv (/cttt) kik[l] t) aXXode/M TToOeu covov
fievos Kai fxrj irapa tcov tttju (nvriv e^ovrav irepi /xeu
avTov o /QacrtAeuy SiayvoxTeTaL airoTLverco 8e tols
Tr]u cov €-)(pvaL I- T /cat tov eXaiov /cai tcov (popTimu
CTTepecrda) et-cnrpaa-aeaOco Se viro tov oiKOuop.ov kul tov
[av]Tiypa(f)€a)s eav 8e airpaKTOs tjl 7rapaS[oT]q) avTov
etf [ ^o]vXofJLevov [. . . .
7"[ Trpay]fJiaTevofJie[v ]
Trj[ TOV oiKovop.o]v Kai TOV a.[vTLypa]
[0e&)y (r[TeiXavT[ ]
[ ] eau 5e a[
About 3 lines lost.
[ ]iiov eXa[ Trapevpeaei]
fjirj8ep.LaL fj.T]8 et? AXe[^av8p]eiav etaayeaOai
€^(o t[o]v fiacnXiKov eav 8e TLves eiaaya>ai irXeov
ov fieXXovaiv avrjXaxriv CKuaTos (Trjv} /cara (rco/jLa
rjfiepcov TpLcav tcov re (popTicov (T{e)Tfp€crda)(rav
KUL TCOV TTopeicov KUL TTpoaaiTOTiveTcoaav Kad €Ka
cTTOv /xeTprjTrjv H p Kai tov irXeiovos Kai tov eXacr
(Tovos /cara Xoyov
Col. 50.
QL 8e fiayeipoi to aTeap KaTa\pacr9cocrav KaO rj
fiepav [€]vavTL0V tov ttjv eXaiKrjv e^ovTos
avTO [8e] Kad avTO fjLr]8evi TTCoXeiTCocrav 7rap[ev]
pecrei iJ.ri[8e]fiiai p,r]8€ crvvTrjKeTcocrav p.r]8e a7r[o]
o Te airo8o/iiei/os K[ai o 7r/3i]a/xej'o»
TL6ead[co](Tav ei 8e firj airoTiveTco eKaaTOS
F
34 REVENUE LAWS
Ka6 (KacTTov odv av irpir;ra[t]
TOIL T{ri\v eXaiKTjv TrpLa/jievaiL {eKaarrju rj/xepav) h v
20 OL 8 €Xa[L]oupyovi>T€s eu tols lepoLS rois Kara ttjIv]
^copau a7i-oypa(j)ea-da)iTav irpos Top, 'irpaypaT€vop[€\vov
TTjv covrjv Kai irpos tov wapa tov oiKCovop.ov /ca[t] rov
avTiypa(f)ecos TToaa re eXaiovpyia vTrap-^ei eu eKacrrcoi
i€[pco]L Ka[i\ 7rocro[i] oXpoi ev eKaa[T]o)L epyaa-Trjpicot
Col. 51. [/cat nrct}T]rjpia Kai e7n8e[t.^aT(oaav ra epya(rT]r][p]ia
[kul tovs oX]povs KttL Ta i7r[a)rT]pia 7rapacr)(e]Ta>
[aau ety TrajpaaCppayicrpou [ ]
[ jcoaav Se o re[ ] km
5[ ] TOV eXaLOV k[ ]ko
i
[ ]w
About 3 lines lost.
€a[u 5e prj] a7roypa[(pa)VTat. p.7]8 e7r]t5et^co[a-i pr]8e
7rapa[a")(a)v]Tat, ety 7rapaa(j)pay[L]^poi> a7roTi[i'eT]co
crau OL €7rt tcou lepcov TeraypevoL eis p-ev to ^aai
10 Xlkov CKacTos Tcov acTLCou ^ y Kai tols ttjv
ocrov av 8LaTLp.7](TcovTaL
(avrjv irpiapevoLs to fiXafios irevTairXovv otuu
8e (BovXcovTai. KaTepya^eadai ev tols lepois to eXai
o
ov TO ariaapLvov irapaXap^aveToiaav T{rj')v ttjv courji/
irpaypaTevopevov Kai tov irapa tov oiKOvopov Kat,
15 TOV avTiypa(j)€C09 kul evavTiov tovtcov eXaiovp
yeiToxrav KaTepya^eaOco[(ra]v 8e ev Siprjvcot ocrov
arreypa-^avTO eis tov €via[vTo]v avi]Xcodr)ae[a]dat.
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 35
TO 8[e k]lku to avrfKLcrKoixevo[v \]aix^av€Taia[a]v irapa
Tcov [T]r]ii (ovrjv e)(OVTC0V Tr][9 K\a9i.e klklos KaL tov ekaiov
aTro(TTeX\X]eTa>T€s eu AX6[^]au8peLaL kul YlrjXovaL(o[i\
KaTa^[copi]^eTa)(Tap to [rejAoy ety ou av vofxov ayco[aL t]o
eXaLov
eau 8e Tives €ls tttjv L^liav] ^peiav ayovTes ra t^Xtj /xtj ku
Ta^aXXaxTLV 77 to avp^oXov fir) KOjXL^^yaxTtv tov re eXatov
25 (TTepedOwaav Kai TrpoaaTroTiveTcoaav tov p,e \- p oa-oi be rtav eixiropMv
€K n-qKovcnov $eviKov eXaLov jj Qvpov TrapaKojuif [cojo-tz' us [h.'S]i^avh\p\iiav arfkeis
farcoaav (7i;ju,;8[o]
[Xoi" b]e KOfxtfe[Ta)]cr[ai'] Trapa [t]ov eju, n[r]]kovaioii Ka6ea[Tr]Ko\Tos k[oy]evT[ov]
KM TOV oLK[o]vofji,[ov Ka]davep
[fv] Toyi rofxaji yey[pa]Trrat to(rat)r[co]s be (cat tov aiT[ ]e[. . .]
eij A[ke\iavbpeLav
[. . .] Kai to[v]tov [(Tvpi.j3o]\ov KOfJLi.([e]T0dcrav [irjopa t[ov ]v
aTr[ ] e[a\y b[e p,r]]
Col. 53. {[. ... jiiejrou (td^jS)
Plate XI. [ ij,]evov (rvju,/3oA.oii r(i)[ tov eXaiov]
[crav
[7rapa]Xr]\lrovTaL 8e ol [e-)(OVT€S ttjv avqv t]o irpoKr]
5 [pv')(de\v e(f) eKacTTcoi vop[a)L aTroTiOeadat (rr](T]ap.ov
[kul Kpo]T(ava a(J) rjs av T]fj[epa9 ttju wvrjv 7rapaXal3]co(riu
[ey r]p]epaL9 y tov cryfcrapov Tr]v ap H . tov (r]r)aa
[pLV0]v TOV ;Ue I- [. . Kai, KpOTCOVOS . Kat KJt/CiOf ^ i(
Two lines lost.
[ 1/XOO£[ ] Tlfirjs »)s[ J rat avTois [. . . .]p[ ]
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
37
[ ] (IS TO K^ L KOI 70V crrjcraixov km KpoTOivos (cat kz'7)k[ou] Ti\}j]riv Trjy lo
yeypaixixe
vr][v ev TMt] biaypaiijxaTL rcoi eKTe[6f\vri eis ro k{'L
eav 8e irXeiov eyKaTaXlejnraxnv e^iovres e/c rrjs
covrfi Kofju^eadcoaav irapa tov olkovo/xov Tifirjv
TOV fiev (nqo-ajXLVov tov fxe (H Xaf- — v) tov de kl
Ktoy tov fie H Ac(a=) tov 8e kvtjklvov tov fie H (ir]/ — )
TOV Se crrjaafiov ttjs ap \- t] tov Se KpoToavos
=
T7]s ap \- 8 Tr}S 5e kvtjkov \- {af) oaov 8 av eXaiov
4
v7roKT]pv^(op,ev XTj-^eadat eKacrTov v[o]fji,ov ety
Ta[s] ev AXe^av8peiai 8i.a0€aeis Xr]-^ofji,€[6]a Trap av
[kikJios Tojj, joie I"t9= o
Ttov ev TcoL vopxoL TOV [ixe]v eXaiov tov fie tov i/S^
(^^[/Jt]? Kepafiov h Xaf- — [v] tov 8e KLKt[os] \- Ka =
J'
t[ov] 8e KVTfKivov H irjf- — [tov] 8e koXokv[v]tl{ko)ov Y- i^J
K[aL v]iroXoyL(T6rfaeTaL r) r[t/u,r;] roiy e)^ova[L] Tag covas
ei[s T]as ava(j)opas Tas yivopleva]! ttjv 8e T[ifi\r]v tcov (pop
T[ia>]v Kai TO KaTepyov Kai t{6\ avrfXcdp-a 7r[poa]vr]Xi.(rKe
t[cO o] OlKiOVOflOS
15
25
{oa[ov] 8 av yjieiav excofiev eXaiov crrfo-afiivov t] kiklos ev AAe)
(^[av8peLaL TrpoKr]pv^]ofiev ewL ttj? Tfypaaecos . . . .] Col. 54,
Ka[ ]tov p,e b p.r)) o[ ]
(j-$[ yf\fiLoXLv Tas eXaio[ ]
5[ ]fiaTos Xoyov t[ ]
[ ]evo}v e[v] Ta)[i ] 3
Two lines lost.
38 REVENUE LAWS
[ e^ovaiav firjSefiiav]
€^eTcoa[au] eLcrayeip 7T[apevpeae]i firjS^fXLat m[v]b€\ri[ eicrayovTes) rov re eXatov {a-Tepeada)}
yriyoxoTes ttjv rtjurjr eicnrpaacrfcrOaxrav km
(aau} Kai TvpoaairoTLveTwcrav {ets to ^aa-iXiKOv) eKaaros
V
Tcov ixeiJt.i(r6a3p.€V(ov r{a>)v K(Dp,-qv 7^ y
VTrapxero) be r\ crTepecns eis to /Sao-iAtKoy Kat Kara
\capi(e(r6w(^cravy eis Tri[v] eKaiK-qv rrjv ev ttjl xcopat
15 7rapa[K]aTa(TTr](rov(Ti 8e ol irpiafievoi Tri[v co]i>r]v
Kai ai'[Tt-y]pa(f)eLS eu AXe^avSpeiaL Kai UTjXovcncoL [rov] eXat
ov Tov [e/c 2]i;/)tay a7ro(T[T]eXXopevov ety Ilr]Xo[v(riou] Kai
AXe^ci[u8p€L]ai' Kat 7ra[pa]a^payi^€(Tda)(Tau ra a[7ro5]o
^ta /ca[i tc£i]l av7]XL(rKop[e]ucoi 7rapaKQXov6eiTco[aav]
20 o Se Ka[Ta]o-Ta6eLf avTL[ypa\(^evs rrjs (ovqs vtto tov o[i]kovo
fjLov dtaXoyL^eardco 7r[/3oy] tou ttjv covrjv e^ouTa K[a]ra
fXTji^a evavTLOv tov auTi[yp]a(pea)s ypa(f)eTco Be ev tols Xoyot9
Ta T€ (popTia ocra e/cacrro[i; y]euov9 TrapetXTjcpei/ Kac ocra
[rtjLiTjs TTjs ev TiDL biaylpap-p-aTL yeypaixij.fvris
Col. 55. [KaTeL]pyacrTaL Kat, TrelircoXrjKe ■^(copcs] tov a(j)ai
[peTOv] TTjV T€ Tip-rjU T(0[v 7rap€lXT]IXp.€UC0v] TTjV €V
[tcol] BiaypafxpaTL yeypla/xixevtjv a]vv Tcot
[Kepal/xicoL Kat tols XotTroL[s avr]Xcop.acn tov fiep a]i]a-ap.ov
5 [Trjs] ap b a tov 8e Kpo[Twvos . ttjs 8e kv]t]kov —
[tov 8e KoXoKVVTtvov . TOV 8e eK tov Xlvov cnrepixaTos .]
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 39
[tov 5e (rrjaaixLvov eXaiov tcov . ap \- , tov fie kikios T(ov]
€ [ap H]a — TOV fie kvtji^lvov] tcov t] ap [h .] tov fie
eirleXXlvxuiov tcov ^ ap \- a koXokvvtlvov tchv ifi ap a —
aTTO
Kai TO crvvTeTay/xevov fiepL^ecrdai tov eTnyevrjfjiaTos 10
Tcot eXaiovpycoi /cat tcol ttjv oavrjv Blolkovvtl Kai o ti av eiy
TT)v TrapaKop.iSrjv tcov (j)opTioi)v yevrjTai
01 fie p.L(T0oi TOLs 7rpayp,aT€vofjL€voL9 TT]v covT]v SiSocrdci)
€K
crav airo tov /jcefiepiap-evov {ajro) tov eiriyevrjixaTos
ev AX[e^]avhpeLaL 6e to re Kwrepyov tov a-qaafjiivov ekaiov kul to TrpoirciikrjTiKOv 15
Kai 01 p.[La]9oi bLboa-dcaa-av KadoTL a/x ■npoKrfpvyOrjt eirt t7)[s] vpaaecas
ZHTHCIC
r] cov
eav 8e ol rjyopaKOTes ttjv ci}[vr]v] ol (eTri} tovt{ol[s]} virrjpeTai
Po[vX]covTai ^rjTeiv (pajxelvoi eX]aLov rrapa T[LaC\v VTrap^^eiv
Kcx[p7r]Lfxov rj eXaiovpyL{ov')a ^[rjYeiTcocrav 7r[ap]ovT09 tov 20
77 [napa t]ov
7r[apa] tov oiKovopov {Kai} tov [avTi,]ypa(j)€cos €[av fi]e TrapaKXt]
6{€LS o] irapa tov olkovov t] tov [avjriypacpecos p[r] a]KoXov0r]ar]i
77 [p,r]] TrapafieivrjL ecus av rj ^rjTrjais y€V7]Ta[i, ajiroTiveTcocrav
r[oiy] Trjv covrjv Trpia/ievois ttjv SiaTifiTjcnv [ocro]v av SiaTi/ir)
Kai
(TCovTai SnrXrjv (firj) e^ecTTCo 8e tols ttjv [cov]r]v exovcri 25
^r][T€i,v evTOs . 'r]fji\epcov Col. 56.
7ryo[ ]ai, TLfiaaOco Kai [ ]
ov (^ ]
oy fi[ ] Tr]v ^rjTTjaLV /c[ ]
OTL av
[ ]^?ji 7] jxr] bf^TjTai
40 REVENUE LAWS
5[ ] <*:o>[ ]
One line lost.
[ ] ™ [. . .]
Tov 8e fiT] evpoPTa [a] €(f)rj ^rjreiv e^earo} [t]coi
^rjTovfievcoi opKLcrat ev lepcoi rj fxrjv fiiqOevos aXXov
evcKeu rrjv ^rjTrjaiv TroLeLaOai aXXa tcou irpoa
10 ayyeXevTcov kui avyKvpovTcou ety rrju covrjv
eav Se p-rj opocrrji avdrjp-epou rj rrjL vcTTepaiai airo
TLV€Tco TOIL e^opKL^ovTL TO TLprjpa oaov eripr)
TTpLV
craro (eiri) rrju ^rjTrjo-tv TroLeiadai BlttXovv
OL 8e TTptap-euoi r-qv [a)]vTf}v eyyvovs Karao-TTj
15 (TOVCTL Ta)[v] ((JieiKoaTcou /cat StopOcoaourai ra [p]€v Xo
y€vpa[T]a Ka9 rjpepav [cJTrt T7]v Tpa7re^[ai> Trj]u
8 ava(j)op[av T]r]v €7nfiaX[X]ovaav tcol prjui ev t[coi e^]o
p-evcoL [irpo] ttjs 8i'^o[p]r]VLas
'' Tois eXatovpyloLS t]o yiuopevou >
20 8t8ovaL airo to[v Ka\Tepya^opevov
< Kai p,r) airo tov a[iro]TL6ep,evov >
8th [AjIOPeWMA TO[Y NOMOY EOI TH]I
J:r„. [EAJAIKHI
PI. XII. TTCoXovp-ev T[r]u eXaiKrjv ttju /cara] Trjy ^copau
airo prjvos Top7ri[aiov tov .... Aiy]vTrTiaiu
5 Meaopr) et.s er[r; j8 /cara to eKOepa] to cKKeipevou
Three lines lost.
TrXeioy [. .] y[7ra]p[^€L\ t[o] t[€Xo9 to]v [re (r7}](r[ap.ov Ka]i tov Kp[oTcoi>os]
TOLS TOV (LcriouTa ^povov 7rpiap€U0L9 oaas 8 av apovpas
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 41
airo
eXacraovs {irapa^BeL^cofiev Karecnrap^evas raifi irpo
KTjpv^OeLcraiv ev eKaarcoi vopxoL irape^op.ev e^ aXXmv
vop.cov TO T€ ar]crap,ou /cat tou KpoTcova tov eXXenrovra
/cat UTTO TOV 8o6r](rop,evov crrjaafiov Kai KpoTcovos virap^ei
avTOLS TO TeXos aj ^ V- tov a'r](rafJLOV Kat H a tov
KpoTcovos e^ ov 8 av vofxov to irXeova^ov tov rrpoKT]
pv^OevTOs e^aya>p.ev (rr]aap.ov 77 KpoTcova ov irpa^ov
Tai TO reXoy to airo tov [cr]r](rap.ov Kai tov K[po]Tvos roty tov]
€LaL0VTa ■)(j)ovov Trp[L\apevoLS oaas 8 av apovpas €kacrcro[vs]
airodei^copev KaTeairappevas tcov TrpoKijpv
10 ^deicraiv €v eKaaTcoL vopcoi irape^op,ev e^ aXXcov
vopcav TO T€ (TTjcrafiou Kat tov KpoTcova tov €V
XetTTOVTa Kai airo tov 8odr]crop.evov ar]aap.ov
Kai KpoTcovos VTrap^ei avTOLs to t^Xos a/ /3 H
TTjs apTa^r]s Kat h a tov KpoTcovos
15 eg ov 8 av vop.ov to irXeova^ov tov irpoKrjpv
xOevTos €taaya)/x€v rj cnjaapLov rj KpoTcova ov
wpa^ovTaL TO TeXos to airo tov arjcrapov Kai tov
Kpo[T]a)vos ocrov [8] av prj 8a>pev ets to eXXenrov
crrj(r[a]p.ov Kai €XaLo[v] a(f) ov Kai to €7ny€[v]7]pa to laov
20 Xrjlp^rovTai oao[v] airo tov ar]aap,[i.v]ov eXaiov
Kai [tov] ar](rap.ov [e]is 5e to kiki to KoX[oKv]vdivov eXai
ov K[ai t]o airo tov \K\ivov aTrep/xaTos k[. . K]aT€pya
aalpevoi 8ia] tco[v o]iKovoixciiv peTpr)[(rope]v ov to e[7ri]
ye[vr]pa to lctov Xri]p.y^ovTai oaov airo T{e tov kikios Kai airo]
25 t[ov KpoTcovos eXaix]l3avov tcci 8e Ka[Tepyacrap.eva)i]
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 43
e7raKoXov6{rj(rov(nv ol ttju a)v]r]u ^°^- ^0.
r A 1 Pl.xm.
€)(0VT€s /cat [TrapaacppayiovvlTat
oaov 8 av e^ eK[aoToii vofiov ar]cr]aixou
7] KpoTco[ua 7} eXaijou
[(r]r]aafjLiv[ov rj kiki 77 to koXokv]v 5
[tlvov ov Trpa^ov]
[rat OL irpiap.evoL ttjv eXaiKrjv e^ . . . arj]
[a]aiJioy [ ]
reXos ovdev to 8e a-7reipofJLei\ov crr]a]a
fJLOv Kai KpoTcov €u TT]t a(j)a)pL(T/xe 10
V7}L TrapaXrjiJLylreTat o oikovojjlos Kai
^opTjyrjcreL eis to eXaiovpyLou to ev A
Xe^avSpeiaL 7rooXovfjL€u 8e ttju
covrjv irpos ^aXKOv /cat Xrjfxy^ofxeQa
€LS Tov (TTaTr/pa ofioXovs k8 eav 8e 15
TrXeuo rj pvais cy^rji virap^ei to eXaiov
Kai KiKL eis to fSacnXiKov
EN T6)I CAITHI CYN NAYKPATEI
a
arjaap-ov ^ M
a
KpoTCiovos a M'AvXylS' 20
/cat axTT [et]? ttjv ev AXe^auSpeiai
SiaOeaiv [ov] reAoy ovOev TT/oa^erat
a
o top Ca[iTr]]v ayopaa[a]s ti Mx^'^y
/cat (rr](ra[fiov] ety ttjv e[v] AXe^av8peL
ai StadeaiLV ] ap T 25
G a
44 REVENUE LAWS
Col. 61. EN [THI AIBYHI HAjCHI XCOPIC THC [A$6)PIC]
[MENHC o-770-ayLioi;] « 'Ef
[/ctti ej' TTyt a^co]pLcrixevr}L o Sei. [)(opr]yeLv]
[eis Trjv ei> AXe]^ai'8peLai 8ia
5 [decriv ov] reXoy, ovde[v Trpa^erai o ttjv]
[Al^vtjv ayopacras] ^ [. .]
[top Se KpoTcova ov Set KarepyaaOr]]
[vaL ev TT]L covrjL ^oprjyrjaofiev e^]
[aXXcou vofia)]p ap[. .]
10 ov reXof to yivofxevov airo
TOV KpOTCOVOS Virap^CL TCOL TTjU
Ai^vr]v -ayopaaavrt
EN TWI npocwniTHi
(rr](Tap,ov hi 'Aco
15 KpOTCOVOS hi 'B
/cat coare eis ttjv ev AXe^auSpeiar
SLadeaiu ov reXoy ovdev Tr/ia^erat
TOV TlpoamTTiTyv ayopacras
a
apTa^as MT^
EN TtOI NITP[I]COTHI
arjaa/xov hi r
[t]ov Se KpOTava ov Set KaT€py[a](rdr}vai
[ev] TT]i covrjli] ^opriyr]crop.ev e^ [a\]
[Xwv] vop[a)\v ap 'A
25 [ov rcXoy t]o yivopevov a7r[o tov]
Col. 62. [KpoTJavos VTrap^[et tcoi ttjv]
[Nir]/)icoT77i' ay[opaaavTC\
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 45
[EN TW]I CEBENNYT[HI]
[ ayopaaas
EN T[(OI HAIOnjOAITHI
a\r](rapov ] hi (f)
5 [/cat e/c Tcov aXX]wv vofxcov
[XOprjyqaopev] ap 'B
[ov TO TeXo9 TO yi]vop€vov
[airo TOV arjcrapov vwap^eL]
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 47
[tcol top HXioiroXiTrjv]
q[yopaaauTi top 8e Kpo] 10
T[a)va ov Set K]aT€pyacr
0[7]v]ai ev TrjL [ca^vqi X°PV7V
[cro^nev e^ aXXmv vofiwv
[a/3]ra/3ay T0
[ov to] reXos to yivofxevov 15
[to]v KpoTcavos virap^ei
Tcoi Tov HAi07r[o]Xtrr;i' ayo
pacravTi
EN TCOI BOYBACTITHI KAI
BOYB[A]CT6)I 20
(rr](rap,ov y 'A
H[ai] eK Tcou aXXcov voficov
[)(ppr}yrj\aop.€v [ap . .] Col. 65.
[ov TO re]Aoy to yLvo[fJL€vou airo to]v
[arja-a/xlov virap^ei [tcoi tov Bou]
[fiacrTi]TTjv KaL Bov[fia(TTOv ayo]
[pa(Tav]TL TOV 5[e KpoTcova ov Se]f 5
[KaTepy]a(r0T]vaL ev [ttjl covtjl x^P^V
[yr](rofJi,e]v e^ aX[Xcov vopxov]
[apTa^as • • ]
[ov TO TeXos TO yLvop,€vov airo]
T[o]y i^poTcovos virap^et tool tov] 10
Bov^acrTi]Tr)v kul B[ov^]aa"r[o]v
ayopa[cra]vTi
48 REVENUE LAWS
EN THI APABIAI
'5 KaL COCTTe €LS TOVS aWoVS VOfXOVS
apovpas 'B
ov reXos ovOev 7r/3a^[e]rai o Trjv
ApajSLau ayopaaas to[v 8e\ Kporco
va ov 8eL KaTepya[(r6\r]vaL eu
20 Tr)i covrjli] ■)(oprjyr](rop[€]i' e^ aX
Xcov vopcov ap T;^
Col. 66. ov [to reAoy to] yLvop.€v[ov virap]
^e[i TCOL Tr]v A]pafiiau ay[opaaavTi]
EN T[COI CEGPJCOITHI
a-rjla-a/uLov ] ^ [. .]
5 K[aL COCTTe ei9 to]vs aXXovls vofxovs]
ov [to reAoy o]vdev 7rpa[^€TaL\
o [tov (ie9pa>LT]r)v ayopa[cras\
[apovpas . . ]
[tov 8e KpoTcova ov Set KaTep]
10 y[acrdr]vaL ev ttjl covrjt X°PV\
yrjcrofxev e^ [a]XXcov v[ofji\cov
apTa^as 'Eu^
ov TeXos TO yLvopevov [aJTro
TOV KpoTcovof VTrap^ei tcol
15 TOV CfdpcoiTTjv ayopacr[a]vTi
EN T CO I TANITHI
crrjcrapov ^ 'AvX
Ka[L] C0O-T6 €L9 t[o]vs aXXovs vopovs
OF PTOLEMY PHTLADELPHUS. 49
ov TeXos ovdev irpa^eraL [0] tov
TavLTrjv ayopaaas hi 'A(j)o 20
Tou fie KpoTcova ov Sei KaTe[p]ya(T
OrjvaL ev [ttjl (ovt^l] X'^PV ^°^' ^'^'
yrjaofiev [ef aXXojv] vofxcov
apra^las] 'E/i
ov TO re[Aos' to yt.vo]fievov
airo TOV [KpoTcovos] virap 5
^et Tm[i TOV liavLT]r)v
ayopaaa[vTL\
[EN TCOI AEONTOnOAITHI]
[(rrjcrafiov iS . .]
[/cat &)](r[re] eis rouy aA[Aou?] 10
vo/MOVs ov reAoy ovdev
■jrpa^eTa o tov Acovto
TToXiTTjv ayopaaas hi 2/i
TOV 8e KpoTCova ov Set ku
Tepyaadrjvai ev tyji covrji ig
XopTjyjaofJ.ev e^ aXXcov
vofjuov ap 's"2
ov TO TeXos TO yivop-evov
a-iro TOV KpoTcovos virap^et
Tcot TOV AeovTOTroXiTrjv 20
[ajyopacravTL
[EN TCOI a)A]PBAeiTHI coi. es.
[a-r](rap.o]v ^ [. .]
[/cat coa-Te] ety rouy a[AAoyy]
H
50 REVENUE LAWS
[vofiovs o]v reAos" o[v0ev]
5 [TT/oa^erJat o tov ^[ap^ai]
[diTTjv ay]opa(ras [ki . .]
[tov 8e K]po[T]coi'[a ov Set Ka]
[Tepyacr6r/va]L ev [ttji, a>v7]L\
[Xoprj-yrjaofiev e^ aXXcov]
lo [vop-cov ap . . ]
[o]v TO r[eA]oy t[o yivofxe]
vov airo tov KpoTcovos v
Trap^ei [t]coi tov ^apfiaiOt
TTju ayopacravTi
15 EN TtOI AHTOnOAITHI
<7rjcrap.ov hi vtt
KpoTcovos y (l>v
Kai cocTTe eis ttjv Stadecrtv
TTjv ev TOis aXXoL vop.019
20 ov TeXos ov6ev Trpa^eTai,
TOV AtjtottoXlttjv ayo
paaas U ^Klv
Col. 69. .EIC MEM$[IN AEI X]OPHrEI[N]
[E]K THC ApMNHC]
ar](ra[ixov ap] 'A2
KpoTco[vo9 ap . ,]
5 oil T€X[os ovOev 'ir]pa[^€TaL]
o T-qv eXlaLKTjv Trj\y e[v Me/^]
0et ay[opacras]
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 51
[EN T6)I EPMOnOAITHI]
{(jrjaafiov U . . ]
Ktti e/c Tcav aXXa{v] voficou 10
a
■)(opri-/rj[cr]ofjLev ap M'B
ou ro reAoy ro yiuofievou
airo Tov arjcrafiov VTrap^ei
Tcot TOV ^pixottoXlttjv
ayopaaavTL /cat tov Kpo 15
Tcova ov del KUTCpya^eadai
€v TTji covrjL ^opr]y7]croix€v
a
e^ aXXcov vofjuov ap M'B'p
ov TO TeXos TO yLvofJLe[vov a]
TTO TOV KpoTcovos V7rap^[e]t 20
TcoL TOV "Eip/xoTToXiTrjv ayo
paaavTi
[EN] T6)I 0[3:YPYrXI]THI coi. 70.
[arrjcrafiov ti] 'Aa)[.]
[tov 8e KpoTcova] ov 5e[t]
[KaTepyaadrjvai ev] ttji [co]
[vrjt )(opT]yrj(rofie]v e^ a[X]
[Xoov vo/Jxov ap] '<;'x[-]
[ov TO TeXos to yivo/xevov]
[airo TOV KpOTwvos virap]
[^€L TCOL TOV O^VpvyXl]
[ttjv ayopaaavTi] 10
H a
52 REVENUE LAWS
EN T CO I HPAKAEOnO[AI]TH[I]
arjo-a/jLov ^ 'B
Kai eK Toav aXKoov uofxcov
Xoprj-yrja-oixeu ap 'Boj
15 ov TO reAoy to yivo/xeuov
UTTO Tov arjcrafxov vwap^et,
Tcoi TOV UpaKXeoiroXLTrjv
ayopaa-avT[i] Kai tov KpoTco
VOL ov 8eL KaTepya(T[d\r)vai ev
2D TTjL covrji ■)(opr]yriaopev
[e]^ [aX\kmv vopcov ap 'Q(f)
Col- 71. [ov to] TeXos TO [yivop,€v]ov airo
[tov K]poT(av[os V7rap^]ei Tcot
[tov] iipaKX€[oTroXLTrj]v ayo
[pacrav]Ti
5 [EN THI] AIM[NHI]
[arjaa]/jLov [bi . .]
[KpOTCOVOf bi . .]
[kul coo-Te els' tovs aXXovs]
[vopovs ov TcXos ovOev]
10 ?]•]?"«' [Trpa^eTai o tov At.p,vL]
. . . M ''"'^^ ayopacras ^ [. .]
crrjo-afiov ^ 'H'p
EN TOil A^POAITOnOAITHI
(rrja-ajxov ^ -^
16 TOV 8e KpoTcova ov Set ku
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 53
repyacrdrjvaL ev ttji co
V7]L ■)(^oprjyr](rofi€v e^ aX
Xcov voficdv ap 'B2
ov TO reXos to yivofie
vov ttTTO Tov KpgTmvos 20
virap^ei tcoi tov A(ppo
SiTOTToXiTrju ay[o]paaavTi
[EN TCOI KYNOnOAITHI] coi. 72.
{crr](Tap.ov H . .]
[Kai e/c Tcov aXXcov uop-cou]
[Xopr]yr)(rofj.ev ap . .]
[ov TO TeXo9 TO yLvop-evov] 5
[otto tov arjaapov virap^ei]
[tcoc tov J^vvottoXlttjv]
\ayop\a(javT\i Kai tov Kpo]
[TJava ov Sei K[aTepyaardr)
[vai] y [. .] 10
EN TCOI MEM^ITHI XOPH
THCOMEN EK THC AIMNHC
ar]aafj,ov ap 'Bw
KpoTcovos ap 'BpK
ov TeXos ovOev irpa^eTai 15
o TTjv eXaiKYjv Trjv ev
Tcoi Me/Lt^iTT/t ayopaaas
EN THI eHBAAI
aT](rap,ov hi 'Ttv
a ^
KpOTCOVOS hi MACDAC 20
54 REVENUE LAWS
KUL cocrre eis [T]r]v [8L]ade[a]Lv tIt}]/]
ev AXe^ap8p[e]iai
KpOTCiOVOS hi 'Q^^
loth AIA[rPA]MMA TPAnEZCO[N]
Col 73. ["^^^ov/MJeu Tas TpaTr[e^as
D.
[. . . Ka]ra rrjv ^(aplav ]
[ ]il3iKrjv Tpa[ire^av . . .]
5 [ ] ^y'^'n'i^ovri ]
[ ] irapal ]
The rest lost.
Col. 74. 7rapaXr)\lrouTaL 8e Kai ol OLKOvop-oi* kul ol -TrpaaqiovTes tl]
Tcav ^a(riXtK[co]v irapa toov KaTa^aWovTai[v ra . . . .]
fiara KadoTt, Kat t[7]\i> [Tp]a7r€^av yeypalTTTai]
TrapaXap^a[ve]iv [ ]vi, ttjv
] I- /c [ ]tc
8]l8oTCO f[ ]
] Trpos a[ ] 10
The rest lost.
cot av ypa(j)r]i\ Travra ■)(aXKOv 8i8ovai ^prjixaTiei Col. 77.
, ] at, 8 au ypa(l)[r]L] irav apyvpiov vwoXo
yeiv ]ov 5ei rou ^aXKOv 8o6r]vai tov
]o 8Laypa(j)eTco 8e eis to /3[ao-]tXtK[o]i/
a]yopaiot kui ol ye[ ] 5
]ov Kai OL X[ ]
, ] epiropcop [ ]
]p \- 8 ;)(a[X/c ]
Xa]p,l3aveTco [ ]
The rest lost.
rq>[ ]v 8e8av€iK€vai avTOVS ein t[. . . ,] Col. 78.
fj;e[ ] ■)(€Lpoypa(l>ricraTcoaav 01 8€8apei
56 REVENUE LAWS
K.OT\f^s /A17] Trpoia-TacrdaL aXXa SedauetKelvai]
e7r[i ]os a7roypa\^a(T6(0(Tav Ka[. . . .]
5 e[ ]vTes a7ro5e[ ]
f[ M]'?Tiy]pa(j)€v[9
avTOLS k[ ]cj)ais 7rpa[
Kai ov[ ]iievov Kau [ 5
77 To[ jadacrau r[
]jji€VCOU 1X7] 8a)[
]€(rTco[
The rest lost.
]t] TOiayl ] Mecropei Kai [ Col. 83.
]apxr]<^ ] ''■o^y ^^^
] TaLS k[ ] ttTTO
]vopevov [ ]v 01 Aoi7r[oi] 5e[
]op.(ov Tcp[v ] crvvauay[ 5
]lvo[. .] €u[ ] €7raua[
o] 8e oiKovopLOS [ ] etcrSiSorM 5[
] areXr] 7ra[ ]ei p.7]va Ka[
]i rou /cara[
]v Xapfiai>[
The rest lost.
]tcol T-qv w{vT]v e-)(ov\n ttjv 8e e[ Col. 84.
Tov TTJV a)v]rjv ^xovTos [ o-vi'e]7rL(7(()pa[yL^€a6co 8e
av]Tiyp[a](f>e[u]9 Kai a[ ]M<»[
]vTf)TaL a7ro5[ ] XPVl
] a7ro
] airo TOV [
The rest lost.
] TTJU [
.JX^ai Kai o[i] TOiraplxoiL
.]. . . eiy TOV Xivov k[
J TOirapyLOi
]r]vaL Xtvov ev tool pi
LVO
. .]vs apovpas /car[
TOOL 0lK0V0p[caL
eav 8e ou[
wiroBeL^rjil
VeTCO €LS TO [fiacTLXlKOU
VLTjpa KaTa[
]r]L evq)[
y]pa(j)evTOs[
]t(» aur[
€7np.€X[
Kai auT[iypa(j)€vs
The rest lost.
6Ka[
[Krjaecos
] I- 2
]tco[. .]ea[. . .]
]o[. .]kco[. . .]
]
] TOV ^aaiXiKov p,e
] KCCL €v(l)avTa)[. .]
]pr)T ets re[. .]
] 7rapa8exe(r[ ]
]eia 7r[a]pa[. . . .]
]r« h 'A
]g-op€vaL coi[. . . .]
]eav l3ovXa)v[TaL]
cr
] 'iraiXT}{X)ovai r[. . .]
]va[ ]
] TTJS 8tOL
]r]Ta) iroL
15
4th
hand.
Col. 87.
15
Col. 88.
I 2
6o REVENUE LAWS
\VTai €K T€ TTCO
\y\x.€va>v yipel. . .]
]ay 8 e^eTcoaav
7r]coXeLTa>(rav [. . .]
]Ta)crav r[. . .]
]e«y €Ka(rT[. .
]v 8e XoLTTcov r[
] Kai TTJV Tlfl[.
]8oTco o rerf. .
auT]typa(p€(o[9 . . .
■ ■]
The rest lost.
Col. 89. ] Kat TCOU 7^ € co[
] eav 5e avriXeyrjlt
7r]po9 t[o] 7rapa8eLy[iuLa
j8[ jeig-dco crrjfMaiveaOco 5e e[
5 ] eav fJiT] 7rapa8i.[
7rapa8€L]ypa o re olkovoixos kI
8i
] 7rapa8ovTes k[
JTcoa-av KaTa[
Te\rayfxevo[
10 jura yivea[
] €7n Tr]s /car[
] TO crvp^oXov [
^]Xev(TLVL Ka[
8eL]KvvTcoa[av
The rest lost.
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. 6i
]r]S ecKppayiai Col. 90.
]Kaiv fXTj irapaSil
]u fieu 7rap[a]8g[
]u LOTTOV TWV av[
]fxa irpos TO 7ra[ 5
]ys 7ra[
]yaLS k{
T7J\s SiOLKr]cre[a)S
]KpL6rjL Karal
The rest lost.
] TOU OLKOVOflOU t[ Col. 91.
7rco]XeLToo(rav etf t7]u ■)(co[pav
\(x)VTaL [
y(.y\pa^6(i) 8 ev tcol avjxl^oXwi
t\o ovop.a Tov e/JLTriopov 5
]cot kolt[
v](f)avTa[.] Kai et[
ep^TTOpov €7rq.va[
bi
] a7ro8o{v)vai t[
The rest lost.
] Kai 7rat[ llth
hand.
] e« '■'?«• [ Col. 92.
] eTTia-ToXrjs ay[
](jOL oix(j)aXa)[i
The rest lost.
62 REVENUE LAWS
12th. eiy (i€^ivvv\Tov /cat] YiriKovaiov [
hand. -
Col. 93. ^^^ °^ '"t '^^y^^ ^^ ^L-W
re7-ay[jLie ] rwyi fxev ety AXel^avdpeiav
as Tcov 8[e eis IlT]X]ovaLOU oXvfj.7r[ 2e]
5 /3ej'z/i;r[ ] eTnOakacrarLav t[
Tvepi fiev [avTov o ^]a(TiX€vs SLayvcolaerac eLcnrpafraea]
6co 8e t[ ]v Kat 7rpocreLcr7r[pacra€a6co
k[ ] TO [o]vop.a [
[ ]era[
10 [ eK]a(TTr)v rip[epav
[ ] Tov ep-TTopiov [
[ ]i>0VTa)V [
The rest lost.
Col. 94. ] VTroy€ypap\p\evr]s
]v TOV LCTTOV \- K€
a]vu TOOL Tpirjpap^rjixaTL
]i' Kai ■)(eipcop,a KaT[. . .] ra
5 Tou L]crTov i- Ke TaX[ ]v(n
Tpi]7jpapxvP-aTi [ ]
] Trepi^co/jiaTl
7rp]a(T(rcou ripl
]d7]aovcrL [
1° ] TuXeicol
] /cat [
]u Tifxr][
]ri(TOV(TLV [
The rest lost.
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
63
a-aii ] Col. 95.
5e ot/coi'o[)Lioy] Kat o avTiypacfilevs
€K 8e [ ]v^'i-^ KaTq[ 5
The rest lost.
olk\ovoiiov KttL avTLy[pa](f)€Ci)9 /cat t[. .] Col. 97.
o /SacTiJAeuy SLayvcoaerai ttjs [ ]
]€Tco (TTeprjcns k[ ]oTrpa(T(r€
]eVT€S TOV Tv H 'A
]dei.9 tTTL Tcov [ A]Xe^av 5
64 REVENUE LAWS
{hp€L
Col. 98.
lo
] Xa^cdv TT]v XLvg[
]v afxvacoi' Ka0[
]r]v rats T0t9 (ry[
]evoLs eis to
fia[atXiKov
cr]Ta\evTos y[
jopaioy X[
] €L9 Se [
]^ az/e[
The rest lost.
]e 7 a^ \- [
]ko
Jtg IT] a^ Kg aXXcp[v
]a^ H fi aXXcou a^ h [
]a)v Vfj
]V a^ \- ^ ^(^LTCOUCOV [
]a^ \- C
] oaov av Ka6[
] TO TeXos 7r[
]a)i> Toov Kajl
] eiKOO-TTJV [
]u
] Kat Tcou a[
] T[a)]p odovico[v]
] TO ^aaiXtK[ou
The rest lost.
]• . •[• •>
[m
]vdeu [. .1
10th
hand.
Col. 99. ]/J.€l'09 TO avfil3oX[o]v
](ot €V Taif)
]cou Trpoo-opixLo-Oco avv[. .]
5 ]av[T
]ea€TaL[
. . .w\
The rest lost.
On the verso of Cols. 95-96.
ra ev ep^TropccoL reXt] e[
covrjv e[)(o\vTCiov e^ ov av vop.o\v
fjiepi^€[(rd\a)aav 8e arro ttjs tl[
TTjv [ LYpeav TCOV Kar KXe^alvBpuav
K 3
Col. 106.
10
Col. 107.
T03V Trjv]
68
REVENUE LAWS
]r]devTcov
]ov -yiuofievov t[
]v fxepos St.a[
] Tovs 5e ayp[
] Trjs (j)vX[
. . . .]oa-[
The rest lost.
Frag. 1.
(«)
id)
]kov Trpa^l
]Xr) eKaarl
] TO e7ri[
Tops of columns.
{b) ] . ypv . . . [
]7r£oAa[
]8ev t[
]av Aetay 5ia[
] €V Tr][i v](rTe[paLaL
] eau Se Tt.[
]ar]TaL a7r[
a}]vTjv e;)([
]Ta)v [
] e7ri[
]poL (oal
]r[
(c) ] e/c Tou vofiov [
\avTai p[
] TOVS ex[
] Trap avT[
ov]p.fioXop [
\ya)(TLV [
] eicrayl
{e) [YjnEP ANA$0[PC()N
Siopdcocroi'[Tai
Tip^rfv [
a7roy[
T0[
Aoye[
(TOV [
o-e [
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
69
(/) ]ey ev rots- [
{g) ](f)ov Kai Bea . €a[
]riL v[
\Ty]i{
ol]kovop[
]y Aeia[
]k avTo\
\lotl hoy{
Vv e[
\riv ev\
{t) blank
Prag. 4.
Middles of columns.
(a) ]aTov[
(b)
]tov[
(c) ]TaKrav
](j)e(rdai, r[
]va)L -xpovcoLl
OllKOUOp-OV
]aau /car[
]tov 7rpa[
] fxrjvos
]fj.evovs' [
]m ef[.]r[
] TV^L
v]ofiapxvi- [
]pr] Xap.fia[v
]vTaL pLT]
]i> CKaa-Tos [
e7r]iTLpov 7rp[
]
] 7rAef[
] 8eKa[
> ef [.
]eaTpa[
]ou r)[
€]TnTip[. .]
]TOpl
]eiy TO fia[cnXiKov
] TTJVI .]
] KaT[
]y TOLS [
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
71
(rf)
]5eKa ay{
(e) ]ot eiyl
(/) Y[
] [
]py]ixev[
]vTO e[
a]7ro5e[
]aL viro^l
] ayo[pa
]vaii> OL a[
]os T0[
]0LKiai[
] Se 7rapa[
{k)
blank
{/) ]5e
(m)
M.]
{n) blank
Ipi'
ev ] /ca^or[t]
Ac]?-L
]Tr]v
M]eo-o/377
] Kai
ra
1 /ceL
]s eav
10
10
]v
72 REVENUE LAWS
] \aTL
\(jaV €Uu]0flL0V
Frag. 5. Middles of Columns.
(a) ]v avTiylpacf) {b) T]pe(f>ofi€
] eVVOfJLOL k[ ](0L Tp€(f)0
]pos Tovs e[ ]a.L rrji
]r]v avT[ ]aTa
5 ]ris ajToypl ]aai ttjI.]
] y€vrjTai[ ] Trpoea-
]i ei/[ ] 7rpofiaT[. .]
M
(c) ]pa Tq.[ {d) ]oL ttjv co[vr]v
] veixe[ ] Tois Xoy[
]ao-d(o Tg[ ] yivecrOai, [
] ^av[ a]XXoLS [
5 a]vTty[pa(f) ]ii> ev rjpl
] TT/y Ae[ ]«/)[.] eKa[
] eiyayy\
Frag. e. Bottoms of columns,
(a) \vri{. . .] {b) blank (c)
]j^ Kop[. .]
] xa^foi^[- •] ] t[o] euu[ofiiov
] 7rapaK[. .] ] 7rpa^ov[
5 ]aT[.]v ]ixeva a[
]tt]v e/cr[. .] v]irep 'Qepe[vLKr]s
]av €is AXe[^av] ]vaiv a-nry
] eyyvovs jaAety /cat 7r[
OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
73
] TOV OLKOVOyLOV
]
lxT]vos 8va{
] Kara Tpijxrj
Kp[
P.7]]V0S M€-)(l,p Ka[ 10
ey\yvov irapa fxou . .
Ol[
]a)L KgL eiy firjua [
]o KaOearrjKcos
T0[
&)$• 8e] AiyvTTTLOL ayovcri [
]av 8e OL ^v
KUL \
. ] '
Trjs avTTjs Xeicf.9 [
] TOV KaT€p[y\ov
Mv[
]^«
XI TO eVUOflLOV
{d) JKiai Ka[
(e)
(/)
] TOV i>o[
]^^e[
]u[.]€t[
y]pa(j)ou a[
aTr]oTiveT[(o
]^aXovT[
5
] Kai TO IS [
]r] irapa [
] roL[
](f)OV TO €Vv[0flL0V
€\(rTa) TOV /3[
]T0[
] TCOL T€t{
] fiT] Scot a
]€La y€[
]S T0V[
] pLT] 8C0L
]os. 8 av[
]vs aTroypa(j)€v[
] aXXoL TLves
]v yeypaplfJLev lo
(^)
{h)
] eXafj.fiav[
]v C^T07r[
]rjcrcoi'Ta[
k\coix7]i, 60 7)p[
6
T]pLp.r]vov crv[
]rji. TO T€ eTos Kai [
]€V Kai TTJV .
Kcofxiqv e[
^x[
o]uop.a Kai [. ,
. .] irapal
a^payli
]aLu r)p[. .]e[.
.]S TTjy [ 10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN
THE COMMENTARY.
A : cols. 1-22.
B : cols. 23-37.
C : cols. 38-72.
D ; cols. 73-78.
E : cols. 79-107 and Fragments.
Lumb. or L. Professor G. Lumbroso.
L. Rec. Prof. Lumbroso's ' Recherches sur I'^conomie politique de I'Egypte sous les
Lagides.' Turin, 1870.
L. P. 'Les papyrus grecs du Musee du Louvre et de la Bibliothfeque Impdriale,'
Notices et Extraits, vol. xviii. part ii. Paris, 1866.
M. Professor J. P. Mahaffy.
P. P. ' The Flinders Petrie Papyri,' edited by Prof. Mahaffy. Dublin. Part L 1891,
Part IL 1893. Part II is meant unless the contrary is stated.
P. P. App. ' Appendix to the Flinders Petrie Papyri.' Dublin, 1894.
Rev. M. E. Revillout.
R. E. Revue ^gyptologique.
Wilck. or W. Professor U. Wilcken.
W. Akt. Prof. Wilcken's ' Aktenstiicke aus der Koniglichen Bank zu Theben,' in
Abh. der Kon. Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin. 1886.
W. G. G. A. Prof. Wilcken's review of ' The Fhnders Petrie Papyri ' in Gottingische
Gelehrte Anzeigen 1895, No. 2.
W. Ostr. Prof Wilcken's forthcoming ' Griechische Ostraka.'
A. E. F. ' An Alexandrian erotic fragment and other Greek papyri, chiefly Ptolemaic,'
by B. P. Grenfell. (In the press.)
Numbers enclosed in brackets [ ] refer to columns.
COMMENTARY.
[1.] 1. On the formula and the correction see Introd. p. xix sqq.
It is possible that o-wrTjpo? was written by the first hand. But if so,
it is absolutely certain that he wrote it as a correction, for crwTrjpoy not
only projects at the end of the line, but is written in smaller and more
cursive letters, especially the r, which lacks the right-hand portion of the
cross-bar. There is no other instance of r written thus in [1]-[15],
though this is very far from proving that o-cor?7pos must have been
written by another scribe, since [1]-[15] are written in a hand even
more formal than most hands in the papyrus, and we cannot say what
this writer's natural hand would be. But though on palaeographical
grounds alone even a moderate degree of certainty is unattainable, on
other grounds there is a strong probability that the writer of o-corrjpos
was a different person from the writer of [1]-[15]. B and C were
corrected in the office of Apollonius the dioecetes of the Fayoum, see
notes on [23] i and [38] i, and it is therefore likely that A was
corrected there also. It is even possible that a note stating this before
[1] has been lost, but the fact that the papyrus begins with the opening
formula is not likely to be a mere coincidence, though see note on
[73] I. Still if A was corrected in Apollonius' office, the presumption
is all in favour of the corrector here being different from both the writer
of [1]-[15] and the writer of [16]-[23]; and the few corrections in A,
when not clearly made by the two scribes themselves, may all have
been written by the corrector of C, who in addition probably inserted
[31] 21-25, the only correction in B not made by the writers of B
themselves.
L 2
76 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
The first three words, which are, like the headings, e.g. [5] 4,
[15] 10, written in larger characters than usual, have been printed in
capitals.
3. UroXijiaiov at the end is quite discernible; the vestiges at the
beginning are consistent with liroXifxaiov, but that is all.
3. We should expect the year to be mentioned, cf. [24] 3, but
the papyrus is hopelessly effaced. The eponymous priesthoods were
probably not mentioned in [24], so that it is not likely that they
were mentioned here.
[2.] 1-4. This section perhaps refers to a second auction after the
lavT] had been already bought ; cf L. P. 6% [3] 14-16, and Josephus,
A. J. 13. 4. 4.
3. eiv cannot be the end of itiakeiv : see note on [13] 11.
The subjects discussed in A, so far as they can be traced, are
arranged on the whole in chronological order. [2] is concerned with
the auction : [4]-[8] apparently have to do with the relations between
the outgoing and incoming tax-farmers : [9]-[15] 9 with the conditions
under which the new farmers and their subordinates entered office :
[15] 10-16 with the collection of taxes: [16]-[20] are concerned with
the monthly and the final balancing of accounts. The last three
headings, a-vyypa(f>cov, Kartpyuiv, and eKKkrjToi -x^povot, stand somewhat
apart. A chronological order is also observed in B, and in [44]-[48]
of C, where the subject is the manufacture of oil ; but in [39]-[43],
regulations concerning the oil-producing plants, little order of any kind
is traceable, and [49]-[56] are arranged on a different system.
[3,] 1-3. ' The antigrapheis appointed by the oeconomus shall take
charge of the revenue payable to the different companies of tax-
farmers.'
3. Cf [12], 3 and [21] 4, both passages referring to payments of
salaries in which 01 Karaa-TaOevres avriypacpeis perhaps reappear. Sub-
ordinate antigrapheis appointed by the oeconomus and antigrapheus,
with other duties, occur in [46] and the succeeding columns, cf [55] 31,
and an antigrapheus rrjj cavrii appointed by the oeconomus is mentioned
in [54] 30. Not only are the subordinate agents or representatives of
the oeconomus and the antigrapheus (himself the alter ego of the
oeconomus) called antigrapheis, but even the tax-farmers appoint
COMMENTARY. 77
antigrapheis, see [54] 16. It is remarkable that the ^aaikiK-q rpaneCa is
never mentioned in A, although the money payments were made to it,
see [31] 16 note, and [56] 16. Of course mentions of the bank may
have been lost, though the columns dealing with the 8iaXoytorju,os are
fairly complete. But the explanation is, as W suggests, that A deals
with the tax-farmers in their relations to the government officials ; the
relations of the officials to the banks are discussed in D, the 6taypafx/xa
TpaireCatv. See also note on [7] 5-
4-7. The position of this fragment, as well as the corresponding one
[4] 6-n o, is uncertain, except in so far that both belong to the first four
columns.
[4.] 1. Possibly a reference to arrears of taxation, which were to be
collected in thirty days : cf. [6] 3.
[5.] I -3. ' If they are discovered to be in debt to the Treasury, those
who secured their condemnation shall have a share in exacting the
payment.'
3. If KaradLKaa-afj-evoLs be correct, the 8 is written much smaller than
the usual 8 in this hand, and is more like a-. Possibly this section has
something to do with the informers, who were rife in the next century,
see L. P. 61. 15—16 fjiaXiara 8e Tinv avKOCpavreiv eTTix^ipovvTbiv reKcovoiv
(so the facsimile) avroi re -wapacpvXa^aade km iraai roij Kara p-epos Stacrret-
KaaOe Trept tcov avrcov pr] irapepyMS. vnapxerco is more than a mere
equivalent for €cttu>, cf. [17] 11 and [28] 10, and the meaning perhaps
is that the persons in question were not only to join in exacting the
payment, but to keep a share of it.
4. AI[ErrTH]2I2 would just fit the lacuna : cf. L. P. 6a [3] 6. The
appointment of sureties is not decreed by any provision in A which has
been preserved, unless [9] bears on that subject ; but the sureties are
mentioned several times. The heading is here a substantive in the
nominative, as usual : cf. [14] 3, [15] 10, &c. The genitive is found in
[20] 13, [21] 3, and [31] 17: the infinitive with v-nep in [24] 14; with
pr] in [28] 17; the infinitive alone in [26] 18, [30] 30; virep with the
genitive in Fr. i e.
[6.] 1-3. ' It shall (not ?) be lawful for the tax-farmers to receive
payments from those who collected the arrears, even if it be within the
thirty days.'
78 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
I. ot emXoyevcravTes. The term is new ; from [8] 4-6 it appears that
they like the Aoyevrat had uTrrjperat, and that their services were required
when the mvt) was changing hands. Cf. [19] 13, where etnXoyeva-is
probably means ' supplementary collection of taxes,' i. e. ' collection of
arrears.' Assuming" jw?? to have been lost before eieaToi at the end of [5],
the sense may be that the tax-farmers were allowed thirty days in
which to collect arrears (cf [4] i), but the arrears had to be paid not to
the tax-farmers but to the oeconomus direct, cf. [18] 17 and [19] 11.
On this theory, however, we should expect TTe-npayii.aTevjj.evois, not irpta-
y-ivois, cf [8] a. M. suggests that 1-3 are complete in themselves, the
sense being that the new tax-farmers might receive the arrears left by
their predecessors, but not until the thirty days had elapsed in which
the outgoing tax-farmers might settle their accounts. This gives a more
satisfactory meaning; cf L. P. 63 [4] lo-ia. But instances in the
papyrus of a section beginning without a connecting particle are rare,
and there is no instance of such an ellipse of a verb after juTjSe.
The -npaKTMp is never mentioned in the Rev. Pap., though the office
existed at this time ; see P. P. 4a. 2, and Leyden pap. Q. 2. As Revillout
has pointed out (R. E. ii. 140), his services were only required when
some extraordinary payment, e. g. of a fine or arrears, was made. The
P. P. quite confirm this view. Then what was the relation of the irpaKTcop
to 01 eTTikoyeva-avres ? The use of the aorist participle is in favour of the
term not being an official title; cf [52] 20 ot Xoyevovres i.e. Aoyewat,
and [18] 8 eirt rrjs SioiKrjo-ecoj Teraynivos i. e. the SioiKTjrrjy, though
ayopaaas is found as often as o riyopaKM9 Tr\v eTa>(rav : the subject is the tax-farmers ; see [15] 16. Cf.
[54] aa and L. P. 62 [4] 18. The official document of the oeconomus
is a ypari, [12] 3.
imrpibos : Egyptians, as well as the foreign settlers, could be tax-
farmers in the second century B.C.; Lumb. Rec. p. 333. But Troerpibos
points to the fact, already traceable in the Petrie papyri, that most, if
not all, tax-farmers in the third century B.C. were foreigners.
5. ^cav. The fact that taxes in kind as well as
in money are meant helps to explain the absence of any mention of the
royal banks (cf. [3] 3 note), which only received taxes in money, [31]
16 note.
[8.] 1-3. ' But if these persons did not connive at it, they shall exact
the payment from the outgoing tax-farmers.'
I. Cf. [21] 4-9. If there is a real parallel between the two passages,
TovTCdv may be 01 KaraaradevTei (sc. avTiypa(peis ; see [3] 3), and /xrj goes
with i T\e\oivio!>i. . . .to cm^beKaTov, referring to the eyyvoL,
8o REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
Cf. L. P. 6% [1] 13—15 eyyvovs KaTaarriaovcnv ruiv einbfKaTcov. But
in [34] 3 and [56] J^ the amount of the caution-money has to be only
one-twentieth greater than the sum promised by the tax-farmers.
It is difficult to see any reason for the correction of the a in bemrov,
unless, because from the way in which it was joined to the k by the first
hand, it might be read as a C Cf. [31] 17 and [52] 34, where there are
equally unnecessary corrections, and not improbably [15] 15.
5-8. The middle fragment in this and the succeeding columns is
much nearer to the lower piece than to the upper.
[lO.J 1-4- ' They shall appoint a guard for the inspectors, the tax-
collectors and the guardians of the vouchers, and all others engaged in
the tax-farming . . . .'
I. (jivXaKriv, sc. KaTaa-Trja-ova-i. In the provinces the tax-farmers were
sometimes assisted by troops in collecting the taxes, Jos. A. J. la. 4. 5,
and Lumb. Rec. p. 335. cpvkaK-q is used in Leyden pap. O for the office of
the avyypacpocpvkaKes ; cf avjx^okocpvXaKes here. But as the ei^oSot are found
in connexion with ^vXa/ctT-at in App. II (4) 10, I prefer to take ((>v\aKrj in
its ordinary sense. The e^oSot were important officials, judging by the
amount of their pay, [12] 18. Their title is still frequently found in
the Berlin Urkunden of the Roman period.
[10,] 8-[ll.] 10. The structure seems to be as follows: (a) [10]
8-13, a regulation applying to the tax-farmers, 'The chief farmer and
his associates shall not receive any payments except in the presence of
the oeconomus and antigrapheus.' The penalty for disobedience is
probably that fixed in [11] 5-6. {b) A regulation that the tax-farmers
should report what they received either to the oeconomus or to the
antigrapheus. [10] 14-15 may be the conclusion of this rule, the
penalty for disobedience being fixed in [11] 7-10. (c) and (d), parallel
regulations for the e(})oboL and others, [10] 16-18 : the penalty is fixed in
[10] i8-[ll] 3.
[10.] 10. KOLvcaves : in the other places where the word is used
the papyrus is mutilated or consistent with the commoner form
Koivaivos.
II. avev: cf [25] 6 and [30] 10. Payments in money did not pass
through the hands of the tax-farmers ; see [31] 14 note. The presence
COMMENTARY. 8t
of a government official, but not the presence of the tax-farmer, was
essential in all payments of taxes.
i6. Perhaps [axravTuis he\, and then eav n r[coj' Tekwv] Trpa^axriv.
[11.] I. a[veveyK(a(Ti] : cf. [11] 7. Perhaps 'pay as an ava<\>opa' see
[19] 5 note.
3. There are great difficulties in the way of supposing the name of
a coin to have been lost after irevT-qKovTa here and in line 10. 5° talents
are too much, 50 drachmae too little, so that the only alternative is
5c minae, which M. would adopt. But (i) 50 minae seem an inadequate
fine, and when this amount is expressed, it is called 5000 drachmae, not
50 minae. (2) As the amount appropriated by the tax-farmers might
vary, we should expect a sliding scale, not a fixed sum, for the penalty.
(3) The custom of the papyrus, to which in A there is no exception, is
that where there is no article the number comes afier the noun. There-
fore on the whole, since this offence would be one of the most serious
which the tax-farmers or their subordinates could commit, I prefer
■jrevT-qKovTairXovv here and in line 10, though there is no instance in the
papyrus of a fine larger than five-fold, when calculated in this way.
[ll.J 11-17.
II. Perhaps ovojiara irapabdiaovin, as Mr. Kenyon suggested to me:
cf. [12] a.
17. The exact position of the fragment containing paevT in relation
to the preceding line is doubtful, ewt r-qi u>vr]i, cf [17] 13, Wilck.
[12.] 1-6. ' If the oeconomus and antigrapheus discover any person
employed in farming the taxes whose name has not been entered in the
list, they shall bring him to the king before he has been able to injui-e
any one.'
I. 01 be oiKovonos : cf [28] la, where ot 8e o, whatever we may think
of the Greek, is necessary, and [96] 4, where ot 8e oikovojxos km uvtl-
ypa(f)evs is corrected.
4. [/3Aa/3?ji'at tl] Wilck. For an instance of an unlicensed tax-
collector, see the complaint of the cobbler, P. P. xxxii (i).
[12.] 11-18.
II. Possibly ot KaT]aa-Ta[dfVTes, see [3] 2, note; and then rots ev
eKaarwi vojpicot,.
M
82 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
13. Probably Trjoeto-Sft) and eoro) 8e] in line 14. The Aoyeura^ t;Tr?j/)erat ,
&c. were to be paid out of the sums collected. But nowhere in A or B
is there any mention of a ixtados for the tax-farmers, nor did they
receive a fxicrdos in the second century B. c. ; cf. note on L. P. 62 [5] 3.
And as the account of the biakoyio-ixos, where it would certainly have
been mentioned, is fairly complete both in [16]-[20] and [34]-[35], we
may conclude that the tax-farmers received nothing but the surplus
above the sum which they had contracted to pay to the government :
see [19] 4 and [34] 13. The position of the contractors for the oil
monopoly was different ; there was hardly any room for an eTTiyevr]ij.a in
the sense in which it is employed in A and B, and even if there was such
an €iTi.yfvr]iJ.a, it is doubtful whether they received it ; moreover they had
definite administrative duties to perform. Hence they received a /xia-dos,
[39] 14 note.
15. Cf. App. ii. (4) 5, 8 cos Tov jxrjvos. In 17 a number has perhaps
been lost : cf. e^oScot evi.
[13.] 1-4. ' A list of all the collectors required for each farm, and
their subordinates and the guardians of the receipts, shall be drawn up
by the oeconomus and antigrapheus acting in conjunction with the chief
farmer.'
I. exaoTTjr : this shows that A is quite general and applies to all (omt
throughout the country.
3. (Tvij.j3o\a : cf. [21] I, [52] 16, 24.
[13.] 7-[14] I. A regulation forbidding certain persons to farm the
taxes: cf. [15] 2 sqq. The penalty is fixed in line 11 sqq. : 'Whoever
disobeys any of these rules shall pay 5 talents to the Treasury and shall
be kept under arrest until the king decides his case.' This is the only
passage in the papyrus where the absence of a law of ^adeas corpus is
conspicuous; but cf. P. P. iv. (7) 5. Imprisonment was but rarely
employed as a punishment, though it is no doubt implied in [12] 2 and
[49] 20.
II. a\. It is possible that the corrector, whether he be the scribe
himself, or, as I think, another person, intended to alter irorjo-Tjt to -noij] ;
cf. for the omission of the t adscript [22] 2 note. But it is more likely
that he wished to correct the spelling, and divide the word differently,
mo\.r]\(Tr\i instead of i;o\t]ut]i, though instances of the division of a word
COMMENTARY. 83
between two vowels are not uncommon in B and C, e.g. [29] 17 ye|iBpyo?,
[54] 16 e\ai|ou. In the division of words the practice of the scribes was
to divide a word at the end of a syllable, except in some cases where the
last letter of a syllable was a consonant. Thus we find [52] 10 ■wpo(T\ii(T-
■npacraeaOcioa-av, [56] 9 T;poa\ayyfXfVTos, [36] 5 ypaixliiaTevei, and probably
even apx\oiv(av [14] 9, [46] 4 KpLV€a\d(>> (cf 46. 8, where o- is attracted to
the preceding vowel, Karao-|ra5ets). On the other hand, the tendency to
end with a vowel and begin the next line with a consonant is shown by
[21] 7 ■7T€i7pa\yij,aT€Vixevoi, [30] 9 yeypa\TTTaL, [37] 7 yLve\cr6oj, &C.
The fragment containing ](oy os[ and ]/3a[ in line 13 has disappeared.
I a. There seems to be insufficient room for rovTu>v.
[14.] 2-5. ' Registration of chief tax-farmers. Intending chief tax-
farmers shall register themselves before the official who holds the
auction . . .'
3. apx(ov[€Lv] : Wilck. The verb is not found elsewhere in the
papyrus, but apxo>v[ai] would be very awkward here.
4. Tov -noiXovvTa : there was no special TrtoArjrrjs in Egypt, the auction
being held by various officials, though generally by the oeconomus,
[20] 12. Cf. L. P. 62 [7] i9-[8] 4, where ot izoiXowTes are the oeco-
nomus and probably the ^aa-ikiKos ypajip-arevs, for in [8] 13 of that
papyrus the officials who hold the auction are subordinate to the
e'TTt/xeA.TjTTjy as well as to the 8toiKrjT?js. In pap. Zois it is Dorion, o y^po-
ixevos eTTtjueArjrrjy irpos Tr)v eyXrjylnv T-qs virpiKrjs, who holds the auction.
Cf. the papyrus published by Rev. R. E. vii. 40, where the oeconomus
was probably the auctioneer. In [57] 3 ircoAovjixei', it is the king who
speaks; cf. [53] t8 note.
[14.] 9-[15] I.
9. [apx]|'v\aKL[Ti]Kov eij TO ibiov Kai ef eXarrovos (not e^ favrov) avvx(opria-eis
TToieLTM. (In line 5 of that document read vnojxvrijxaTa for vKOfivrnxa.)
Though a before ex is doubtful, ■77aj)r[ay ra rekj-q is impossible.
15. The letter written above the line may be a. But if it is ?j, it is
still possible that the first hand had written /htj : see [9] 3 note.
[16.] ' Balancing of accounts. The oeconomus shall hold a balancing
of accounts with the tax-farmers every month before the loth with refer-
ence to the sums received during the previous month They shall
not add the sums received in (the current month?) to the instalment
belonging to the previous month, nor take sums which belong to one
instalment and credit them to another, and even if one of the tax-
COMMENTARY. 85
collectors or of their subordinates pays back (?) a sum which he has
received from the revenue of the farm, this shall not be credited to his
separate account. But when the next balancing of accounts takes place,
they shall add to the revenue of the month the amount which was left
over from the previous balancing, making clear the amount of the sum
left over from the previous period.'
I. 8taAoyio-/xos : cf [34] 9, [54] 20, and L. P. 6a [4] 13.
8. The meaning of the paragraph depends on what these sums were
which were not to be put down to the account of the previous month,
but were to be carried on to the next reckoning. I conjecture that they
were sums received between the end of the month and the day on which
the 8taXoyio-//os was held, i. e. kv tmi €J'e[o-rcort nrjvi,.
9. The subject of the imperatives here, as in lines 10 and 17, is
probably the oeconomus and antigrapheus : cf. line 15 with [17] 17.
ID. For the meaning of ava<^opa cf [34] 7, [53] 24, [56] 17, pap.
Zois i. 31 Teraydai rqv irpaiTriv ava^opav, at 8 avaopa here means the account of the instalment. For the taxes
collected were sent eis to fiacn\iKov, [28] 14 note, and the actual payments
might be made on any day. The ava(f)opa seems to be the account of
the payments during a month added together.
II. These four lines are very difficult. hi-opdova-Qai, cf. [56] 15, is the
term used for paying off the balance of the ava^opa, if it did not reach
the required amount. It is possible that Xa/Scov refers to the jxktBos of
the Aoyeurat, see [12] 13-16. 7r[po(7o8ot;] : Lumbroso.
13. ets TO cbLov : cf. [19] 3, which shows that the tax-farmers had
a separate, as well as a general, account with the oeconomus, and [54]
12 note.
16. It is not clear whether to Ttepiov ex tov enavca hiaKoyi xpovov would
mean the surplus left over when the accounts of the last month were
settled. In either case therefore to -nepiov ek tov crravco y^povov probably
means the e-niyevrjixa ; cf [17] 14, where it is probably used as a synonym
for it.
[17.] 1-16. 'But if the previous period has produced a deficit, while
the next month produces a- surplus, and the oeconomus receives in full
that portion of the deficit in the farm which was not covered by surety
. . . from the surplus . . . But if subsequently a deficit occurs in the
farm which produced the surplus, the oeconomus shall exact payment of
the surplus which had been transferred to another fai'm, from the sureties
inscribed on the register of the farm to which the surplus was trans-
ferred ; but first ... let him restore the surplus (.?), which was transferred
to another farm, back to the farm from which it was transferred.'
I. Three cases are contemplated: (i) 1-5, when a period of deficit
was followed by a period in which there was a surplus : of the course
to be pursued by the oeconomus we are ignorant, but a balance of some
kind must have been struck, so that the sureties were not made liable
for the whole deficit ; (a) 6-9, when a period of surplus in one farm
coincided with a period of deficit in another : in this case the surplus
and deficit were allowed to balance each other, i. e. the surplus was lent
to the farm which required it, instead of the deficit being at once made
good by the sureties ; (3) when the period of deficit occurred in the
farm which had produced a surplus, but had lent it to meet the deficit of
another farm. In this case the oeconomus had first to recall the surplus
(15-1 '5)! in order to meet the deficiency in the farm which had lent its
surplus. By doing so he of course caused the deficit in the other farm
to reappear, and it was therefore necessary to call upon the sureties of
that farm to meet the deficit (13-14). Cf for this balancing of surpluses
against deficits L. P. 62 [6] 4-7.
3. TO ahieyyvov : apparently a deficit might be so great that the
COMMENTARY. 87
sureties failed to cover it. Yet in [34] 3 and [56] 15 the sureties have
to be one-twentieth greater, presumably, than the sum due from the
tax-farmers ; cf. L. P. 6a [1] 13, where they have to be one-tenth
greater. The question of the sureties and their relations to the tax-
farmers presents many difficulties, see note on [34] 4. ahi.eyyvov is
apparently equivalent to aveyyvov, as there seems to be no difference
between (.yyvao-Qai and hieyyvao-Qai, eyyvr](TLs and buyyur]cns, wherever they
occur in the Revenue papyrus, L. P. 62, and pap. Zois,
8. Possibly ex t[^ov Treptovros], if to irepiov is right in 14.
9. The piece of a letter after ]a[ will not suit (f) ; therefore fieracfiepera}
will not do. There is not room for Karaorrjcrara) or KarajSaAXero).
10. €K [t77s a]iin7s is inadmissible, nor is abteyyvov the word lost in 15.
[17.] i7-[18] 9. 'Copies of all the balancings of accounts held by
the oeconomus with the tax-farmers shall be sealed by him and given at
once to each of the associates, . . . and the oeconomus also shall have
copies which have been sealed by all those who took part in the
balancing, . . . and he shall send the copies of the balancings every
month to the dioecetes and eclogistes.'
3. The letter after avros may be rj, and it is not certain that any letter
is lost after ko, though if so, it can only be t. The word, whatever it
is, has nothing to do with jxaprvpas. ex^roi : cf. [27] 1 2. Each party
had a copy sealed by the other, after the manner of modern agreements,
as Mr. Kenyon suggests.
6. aTToareWeTco : cf [51] 22, where it is opposed to bibovai. While
aTToareWeLv implies distance, and therefore we may conclude that the
dioecetes and eclogistes were not always accessible to the oeconomus,
bibovaL is not always to be taken literally, e. g. [36] 8. On the dioecetes,
see note on [38] 3.
9. eyXoyLO-Trjv : cf. [37] 13 rots vtto Awvvaobwpov TerayiievoLi eyAoyto-raty,
and Tobit i. 22 'Axid)(apos be ^v 6 oivoxoos koI im tov baKTvXiov kol Sioiktjt^j
Kal fKkoyKTTrjs. The eclogistae were accountants or paymasters, who
probably had a central office at Alexandria controlled by Dionysodorus,
and branch offices in the country. One of these was probably the
XoyL(TT7]piov in the Fayoum mentioned in P. P. 25, line 23, and 2,6, line 4.
The simple word Koyi,(TTr\s however is not found in the Revenue pap. or
in the Petrie papyri, and in a papyrus of the thirtieth year of Phila-
88 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
delphus published by Rev. R. E. 1882, p. 268, where he reads TreTTToiKiv
&ea)VL Aoyeio-Tjjt 8ia Aiovva-obtopov Ta>v ^rparcovos VTrrjpeTMv, Wilck. tells me
that Aoyeirrjt is the correct reading ; cf. [8] 4 note. The eclogistae are
not mentioned in the papyri of the next century, but cf. B. M. pap. xxiii.
41 for the verb ey\oyiCe<^dai. meaning 'pay.' Later, eykoyLcrTrjs is used
for a ' tax-collector,' i. e. Xoyevrrjs ; cf. the edict of Tiberius Alexander,
C. I. G. 4957, line ^6.
[18.] 9-[19] 4- 'When the period for which the tax was sold
expires, the tax-farmers shall all come to the oeconomus before the
tenth day of the following month, and he shall hold a general balancing
of accounts with them, in which he shall state both the value of the
revenue received, and the balance which they have still to pay, together
with the sums which have already been reported as paid and the dates
of the payments, and whether from the sub-letting of the farm or other
quarters any debts are owing of which it is the duty of the oeconomus
to exact payment, and the remainder still due, and how much is each
tax-farmer s share of the debt ; and underneath the share of the debt he
shall write the amount which he has received separately from them or
the surety, with the dates of the payments, and the remainder still due ;
but if there is a surplus, the oeconomus shall set it down to the credit of
the tax-farmers.'
10. irapecTTCixrav irpos : cf. Xen. Cyr. a. 4. ai. Trap[ayez'ecr^a)cra]i' is too
long.
13. yeviKos \oyos is found in papyri of the Roman period.
i4-[19] I. o(t)ei\co(nv, deal with the collective account of the tax-
farmers, [19] I Kui 7roc7oy-[19] 4 with the separate accounts of each tax-
farmer with the oeconomus. Both sections may be sub-divided into
(i) the liabilities of the tax-farmers [18] 4, corresponding to [19] i km
Tiocrov (KaaTooL tovtuiv 67n;3aA.Xet ; (2) the sums either already paid to the
oeconomus or for the collection of which he was responsible, [18] 15-17
irpa^ai, corresponding to [19] 2-3 ; (3) the balance due to the oeconomus,
[18] 17 Kui TO XoLTTov SUV Ti '!Tpocro(f)ei\io(Tiv, corrcsponding to [19] 4 eav tl
7rpocro(/)eiA))i.
Tiixr]v Tr]s TTpodobov : even where taxes were paid in kind, the accounts
of the tax-farmers were kept in money, see [33] a-8, [34] 7-10, and
cf. [53] 23. hiopea^a-aa-eai : cf. [16] 13 and [56] 15.
COMMENTARY. 89
15. TavTo apparently for rovro. M. suggests 1)817 for the lacuna.
avevr)veyij.fvov : cf. [11] I, [19] 5 notes.
16. airoTTpaixaTcov : cf. L. P. 6a [3] 17. L.'s suggestion (Rec. p. 334)
that it refers to the sub-letting of the farms is a perfectly satisfactory
explanation of that passage, but if a-no'npa\x,a is right here and has the
same meaning, it is curious that there should be no other reference to
this subject in A, mutilated though these columns are.
[19] 3. iyyvov: the singular, because each tax-farmer had only one
surety ; see P. P. xlvi, where Theotimus is surety for Philip, and pap.
Zois, where Thanoubis is surety for Dorion. The avai which were sold
separately for each nome, see L. P. [1] i, [57] 1%, 14, [60] 23, &c., were
subdivided among the different members of the company, each of them
being especially responsible for a district, cf. [54] la note, though the
whole company was liable for the failure of one of its members, L. P.
6a [6] 14-15.
4. ■7:po(Toct>eikr]L : if this is right, the letters must have been very
cramped. The subject is not the eyyvos, but the tax-farmer.
e-mypa\lraTco : here the oeconomus only credits the surplus to the tax-
farmers ; cf. [34] 14, where the payment is made through the royal
bank. But from line 9 it appears that the payment is authorized by
the dioecetes.
[19.] 5-16. 'The oeconomus shall report ... to the dioecetes; and
the dioecetes shall examine his books to see whether there is a surplus
in the receipts from the other farms ; and if there is a surplus due from
him to other farms, he shall balance the arrears against this surplus,
but, if there is nothing due from him to other farms, he shall order the
oeconomus to exact the arrears and pay them over to him when the
collection of arrears takes place. The oeconomus shall pay the arrears
to the dioecetes within three days, or, if he fails to pay them over on
demand, he shall be fined three times the amount, and the dioecetes
shall exact the payment from the oeconomus, . . .'
5. aveveyKarco : cf P. P. 47. 9, and laa. 5 aveveyKcajxev e-ni tov 8iot/cr)Trji»,
in both cases meaning 'report,' not 'pay,' and [11] 7.
13. irpoa-o^eiXeTai: i.e. the tax-farmer; cf lines i and 4.
€Tn\oyevaLS : cf. 01 eiriKoyeva-avTes [6] a note. While the oeconomus
was responsible for the payment of arrears not only from the tax-
N
go REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
farmers but in some cases from the tax-payers ([18] 16-17), this is not
inconsistent with supposing that the actual collection of the arrears
from the tax-payers was in the hands of 01 eTrikoyevaavres : see note on
[30] 5.
15. eia-TTpaiaTM : i.e. from the oeconomus, not from the debtor; cf.
[41] 12.
[20.] 1-13. 'Any tax-farmers who fail to balance their accounts with
the oeconomus, when he desires them to do so and summons them for
the purpose, shall pay 30 minae to the Treasury and the oeconomus
shall at the same time compel them to balance the account . . . The
oeconomus shall also give to each of the sureties an account of his
balance, stating that the surety has paid what he owed. If the oeco-
nomus when asked fails to give the account on the same day or the one
following, he shall render himself liable to proceedings for malversation.
Balancings of accounts shall be held in the same manner by all ofBcials
who shall put up to auction any of the Crown revenues.'
3. Though re is written above eis to, it ought strictly to come after
a-noTLViTcaa-av, unless a second fine has been lost.
II. iravres: see note on [14] 4.
[20. J i3-[21] I. 'Concerning contracts. With respect to all con-
tracts made by the oeconomi or antigrapheis or their agents, being
officials of the Crown, in matters connected with . . ., the officials shall
not exact any payment from the tax-farmers for the contracts or
receipts.'
13. Cf [30] 5 ixriTe aWoL -nap avrwv 01 TrpayjuareDcro/xej'oi, k.t.\.
15. Possibly fLs tovs \oyovs ; there is scarcely room for ets tovs
bt.a\oyi(TiJ.ovs. Though ]vs is doubtful, ]is or cavlas is impossible. The
meaning of this section, as was suggested by L., is that the government
officials were not to charge the tax-farmers anything for drawing up or
sealing the contracts and receipts.
[21.] 3-9. ' Concerning wages ... the appointed antigrapheis shall
pay instead of them ... but the additional penalties which have been
decreed shall be exacted from the outgoing tax-farmers, unless the
antigrapheis are discovered to have connived at the fraud with them.'
a. The spaced and enlarged letters indicate that the word is a
COMMENTARY. 91
heading, and therefore cannot be taken with the preceding genitives.
Though the r is rather doubtful, no other compound of epyov except
KUTfpyov occurs in the papyrus. Cf. [45] 8 and [55] i^, where it means
wages for piece-work. Lines 4-9 are not inconsistent with such a heading ;
cf. ra (ruvTfTayfj.eva with [55] 10 to avvTeraynevov fiepiCea-dai,, and ot Karaa-ra-
devres with [3] 2 and [12] la.
7. Cf. [8] 1-2, from which I have conjectured eKnrpaa-crea-doiiTav, though
it is rather long for the lacuna.
[21.] io-[22] 7. ' Times for appeal. When disputes arise out of
the laws concerning tax-farming, the Crown officials may bring an
action . . . when they choose, but when disputes arise out of the laws
concerning tax-farming, and a different time for appeal has been ap-
pointed in each law, the Crown officials may bring an action, both in the
period for which the revenues have been sold and in the next three
months, unless one of the associates or subordinates connected with the
tax-farming is discovered after the three months have elapsed to have
peculated . . .'
10. eKKA.7jToi xpovoi : cf. Dio Cass. ^\. 19 eKK\r]Tov biKa^eiv, and 52, 22
rai 6i/cas, rds re eKKX-qrovs koI ras avanoimiiiovs . . . Kpiviru).
11. vop.uiv reXooviKOiv: cf. line 14 and Dem. 73a. i. M. however objects
to :^o/xo)i' here, and suggests jixev tovtwv in line la, referring to the word
lost here. But the phrase is certain in line 14.
As L. acutely observed, vonoi reX.Mvi.KOL is really the title of A.
Moreover that throughout the Revenue papyrus we have the laws of
Philadelphus, i. e. the ■noXiTiKOi vop.01. of Pap. Taur. i. [7] 9, is shown, as
he remarked, by the various cross-references from one section to another
as vo\xos. See (i) [25] 15 Kara tov vop.ov, i.e. the preceding section:
(a) [26] 7 Kara tov vop.ov, i.e. [26] 1-5: (3) [29] 10 Kadairep ev tool vopLCoi
yeypai!Tai, i. e. in [27] : (4) [30] 6 and 9 Kara tov vop.ov, i. e. [24]-[30] :
(5) [52] a8 KaOa-Tiep ev tcol vojxoii yeypanTai, i.e. [52] 17-18. In [4] 8,
[20] 6, and [21] 3, there are also cross-references which, owing to the
lacunae, cannot be verified. Cf. also [57] i and the crowning instance
[80] a where there is the heading vojxos 8eKar[ft)2; ?]. It was therefore
a series of documents like the Revenue papyrus, to which L. P. 62 [1] 6
referred, Kara tovs vop.ovs km tu itpoa-Tayp.aTa km tu hiaypap.\xaTa koi ra
biopOcap.eda (i.e. hiopdu>p.aTa). For besides vop.01, there are examples of
N a
92 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
the other three in the Revenue papyrus ; see [39] 1-7 biaypaixfia, [37]
a-8 TrpocTTayiia, and [57] I sqq., biopdooixa.
15. The first word is not Kvpios, for no letter which reaches far below
the line is admissible. It is just possible that vopioiv in this line means
' nomes,' but it is very unlikely, both on account of the context and
because we should in that case expect tv eKao-rcot voucol : cf. [53] 5,
18, &c.
[22.] 2. kt]cl)6r] : if this conjecture is correct, the t adscript is omitted,
a rare occurrence in this century. But see [44] 16 avayayr}, [47] 9 ttoit],
[40] 8 Karaftka^t). It is noticeable that all the cases are the 3rd person
singular of the subjunctive.
3. M. suggests vo(r]v a[bf\(poyv is
right. For the various meanings attached to the moj YlToXefxaLov see
Rev. R. E. i. I ; Krall, Sitzungsb. Wien. Akad. 105, 1884, p. 347 sqq.;
Wiedemann, Rhein. Mus. 1883, pp. 384-393 ; and Philol. 1888, pp. 81-91 ;
Wilck. on Arsinoe Philadelphus in Pauly-Wissowa's Encyc. ; and Introd.
p. xix. sqq., where M. propounds a new explanation for the disappear-
ance of Euergetes' name from the formula after the twenty-seventh year,
a fact already known from demotic ostraca, see Rev. Proc. Soc. Bibl.
Arch. 1885, p. 138.
[24.] 4-13. 'They shall receive for the tax on vineyards from . . .
the sixth part of the wine produced, and from the . . . and the soldiers
COMMENTARY. 93
who hiave planted vineyards . . ., and owners of land in the Thebaid,
which requires special irrigation, or of land . . . the tenth part of the
wine. For the tax on orchards in "accordance with the method of
valuation (hereinafter described) they shall receive the sixth part of the
produce in silver.'
4-10 deal with the a-nojxoipa (see [25] 12, [27] 17, &c.) from vineyards,
which was generally a sixth, but in the case of the favoured classes in
5-9 a tenth part of the produce, and was paid under ordinary circum-
stances in kind, but sometimes in money, see [31] ; while the airofioLpa
from TTapabaa-oi, 11-13, was in all cases a sixth, and was always paid in
money.
5. Possibly K\_aToiKQ)v, but this term has not yet been found in papyri
of the third century B.C. K[k7]povx<>'v (cf. [36] 13) is not likely, as they
are probably the persons meant in the next line.
6. The absence of toji; before roii[ shows that Tre^urfuxorajy and
arpaTevoixevwv refer to one and the same class of owners, and the tense
of nf^vTevKOTojv points to the land not having been cultivated before.
Therefore, accepting Prof. Petrie's theoiy that the K\ripovx_oL in the
Fayoum received land reclaimed from the lake, I think that the cleruchs
of P. P. are included in this class, if not directly referred to by it.
Perhaps tov[s ^aaiXiKovs], cf. [36] 13, or even rot)[y ev rrji Ai/xi'Tjt], cf. [69]
5 note. But I think that M. is hardly justified (see Introd. p. xxxix) in
using the fact that the Revenue papyrus comes from the Fayoum as an
argument for supposing that only the cleruchs of P. P. are meant here. The
Revenue papyrus gives the law for the whole of Egypt, and is not more
concerned with the Fayoum than with any other nome. In any case
this passage strongly confirms Wilcken's theory (G. G. A. 1895, no. 3,
p. 133) that the cleruchs in P. P. were, at any rate nominally, active
soldiers, and not mere pensioners : cf. P. P. xxxi. ^-6.
8. e-KavrXrjTqs : i. e. land on the edge of the desert, out of reach of the
inundation, and irrigated probably by the sakiyeh, or wheel with buckets
attached. Cf. Diodorus' (i. 34) description of the KoyKias.
9. hioiKiiTai is clearly opposed to Trporepov Stcot/cetro, but the sense
depends on the word lost in the lacuna. Cf. [37] 13, where ot 8101/cowres
KT-qp-ara are ' land agents,' opposed to ' landlords ' and ' tenants.'
'2ip.api(TTov: cf. App. II (i) I, where lip.apiaTov is followed by the
fraction for one-fourth, and then 610 ypappaTe\u)v. Underneath are two
94 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
columns, one of dates, the other of figures, which, to judge by the
fractions, refer to artabae, as Wilck. pointed out to me. The quarter
in question is probably a tax, cf. k for eiKoarov in P. P. 151. 15, and the
amounts are large, showing that the tax was an important one. The
occurrence of the form ITaxcoz's in that papyrus is, according to Wilck.,
in favour of assigning it to the earlier rather than to the later part of the
third century B.C., so that it is probably nearly contemporary with the
Revenue papyrus. But the meaning of ^Luapurrov is equally obscure in
both cases, though it is probably a proper name, for a Simaristus who
wrote a treatise ' on Synonyms ' is frequently mentioned by Athenaeus,
6- S- 99 c. M. suggests that here it is the name of a god.
10. beKarriv : cf. P. P. xliii (d) where the heading of a tax list on
produce of vineyards, palm groves and fruit trees, i.e. aTTOfxoipa, is eKTr^s
(cat beKarrjs, and see note on line 13. Elsewhere when the amount of the
tax on the produce of vineyards is stated, it is always a sixth, cf [37]
19 note. It appears that while the tax of a sixth was a legacy from the
time when the oTro/xoipa was paid to the temples, the payment of a tenth
by certain favoured classes was a change instituted by the government ;
[33] ai note, and [36] 18.
11. Perhaps D7roy6ypa/x]/jiei'7js or vT:oK€i]iJ.evris. In any case the refer-
ence is probably to [29], q. v. There is no other instance in the
papyrus of such a spelling as e^wn/xTjo-ecos for ek o-wrt/xrjo-eo)?.
12. irpos apyvpiov is opposed not only to payment in kind, which is
allowed in the previous section concerning vineyards, but to payment in
copper, cf. [40] 10 upos xakKov and App. Ill, and notes on line 13 and
[37] 19.
13. Perhaps ra^ova-iv or TLixTjcrovaLv. The subject may be either the
tax-farmers or the government officials.
As the reader will have noticed in Introd. p. xxxiii, Mr. Mahaffy and
I differ as to the meaning of irapabeio-oL. He thinks that their produce
was only grapes, while I think that palm trees and fruit trees of all kinds
are meant. The distinction everywhere drawn between a/xireXcoz^ey and
•napahiuroi, especially in the mode of valuation and taxation, cf. [29],
seems to me hardly accountable, if wine was obtainable from ■napabucroi.
Why should the government insist on money-payment of the tax on
wine produced in ■napahnaoi, but not on wine produced from a/xireXtoz/es ?
On the other hand if the produce of napahncroi was miscellaneous, the
COMMENTARY, 95
reason for the difference is obvious. The wine would keep, but fruit
would not, and therefore the government required the tax to be paid
in money. With regard to the amSerSpa? (cf. Introd. /. ^.), a single
instance of this mode of culture in the Fayoum does not seem to me
to justify the supposition that it was universal in the rest of the country.
The Fayoum, then as now, contained an unusual number of trees ; and
since the airofxot/^a was a tax on produce, not on land ([33] 13 note), there
is no difficulty in supposing that wine obtained from avaSeySpaSey, the
amount of which I believe to have been very small, was included in the
wine obtained from aixirekooves. Secondly, Mr. Mahaffy adduces the
contrast drawn between TTapabna-os and ktjttos in P. P. xxii, the contrast
between irapabeia-os and (^oiviku>v in P. P. xxxix (?), and the mention of
(TiK-qvrjpaTov in P. P. xliv. As in P. P. xxii. I have made a number of
corrections, I give the important part, line 4 sqq. eav 6e rts irapa ravra
Kpimji 7j Kpidr]L aKvpa earca eav epLj3riL jSovs rj VTToCvyiov tj -upojiaTov r\ dkko tl
[ ]vov fLS akkoTpiov Kkqpov r) napahucrov jj Kr\itov t} apL-rreXcava rj
KaTavep.7\i rj KaTaj3\a\prii aTroreicrarco o KVpios tool l3\a(f>6evTi to /3A.a/3os o av
KaTa^Xaxj/rjL ck KpLaeoos irpo Kpttrecos be p,ri6eis evexvpa^eToi pu^be aTTO^M^errdoi
ixrjbev Trapevpeaei pi.r]bep.Lai eav be tii tovtu>v tl ■7r[oi]T)o-?jt (?) aTrorettrarco Trapa
Xprj/ia h 'A. The distinction drawn between Trapabeicros and Kr}Tros does
not militate against my theory, for if as I think the TrapaSeto-oi contained
palms and fruit trees, the ktjttoi may have contained vegetables and
flowers. P. P. xxxix (?) however seems at first sight to contradict it,
for whether this taxing list refers to airop-oipa or, as I think is more
probable, to 0LviKOives mentioned, but no
Ttapabeiaoi. Now if the tax on apLireXooves is here the airopLoipa, it is
necessary to suppose on Mr. Mahaffy's theory that the Trapabeiaoi have
for some reason been omitted, and that (j>oiviKOives and aKpobva, which
have no right to be there, have been inserted instead. But if -napabeiaos
is a general term including both (j>oiviKMves and aKpobva, the omission of
TTopaSeio-os in xliii (d) is explained, and even the difficulty in xxxix {{)
disappears. If a person had only palm trees he paid the tax on palms,
96 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
if he had only fruit trees he paid on fruit trees, cf. eKTjj aKpobvMv in
a Ptolemaic ostracon, Wilck. Ostr. 1278. TrapaSetcros being a wider term
includes both. Cf. P. P. xxvii (i), in which a man pays the sixth in
kind on wine and in money on aKpobva, a-recpavoi, which must mean
flowers, and another word which is lost. There can be little doubt that
this tax too is the airoixoipa, and that the sixth paid in money means the
tax on TTapaheLo-oi. This leads to the remaining difificulty, the absence of
any enumeration of the different kinds of produce, which are on my
theory classed together under the general term TrapaSeio-ot. But the
government did not fix the amounts to be grown or even the assessment
of the crop, see [39]. The oeconomus looked on while the tax-farmer
and tax-payer fought the question out, and was certain to get the full
amount of the tax in any case, [31] 14 note. Nor can I see any difficulty
in the use of Kapnos in [29] 13 as a general term for the different varieties
of produce. There seems to be no special reason for enumerating the
different kinds, since the word Trapaheia-os, however obscure to us, must
have been perfectly intelligible to the people for whom the law was
written. But we are at liberty to suppose that a complete list was
given at the top of [29] which is lost, though I do not think that this
supposition is necessary, cf. [36] 6 note. That napahticroi contained
(poiviKOives, UKpoSva, and cmc^avoi seems to me certain from the instances
in the Petrie papyri quoted above, and it is possible that ka^ava,
' vegetables,' were also included ; cf. B. M. pap. cxix of the second
century A.D., a taxing list on a/^xTreXoi (so Wilck. for aKavda), uKpohva,
Xayava, and (poiviKcaves, a classification very like the Ptolemaic, and note
on [37] 19 for an instance of airop-oipa in the Roman period.
[24. J i4-[25] 3. ' Concerning the gathering and collection of the
vintage. Let the cultivators gather the produce when the season comes,
and when they begin to gather it, let them give notice to the manager of
the farm or tax-farmer ; and if he wishes to inspect the vineyards, let
them exhibit them to him.'
From this point to [29] i the subject is the tax on vineyards, as is
shown by the numerous references to wine, and by the tax being paid
in kind. The tax on orchards is discussed in [29] ; [30]-[33] 8 revert to
the tax on vineyards ; [33] 9-[35] are general.
15. yaopyoL are 'cultivators' in the widest sense, whatever their
COMMENTARY. 97
position in the scale of society may be; cf. [29] 3, 15, where one
of ot TTapabiicrovs KeKTrnxfvoi is a yecopyos. The word for the ' fellaheen '
is \aoi, [42] 16.
ij. Though bioiKoov is here distinguished from ex.'^v rriv covrjv, if
that be the right conjecture, the distinction is one of nameSj not of
persons : cf [42] 8, where o SioiKtoi; is identical with o fx'^v. The fact
seems to be that 01 rjyopaKOTes or ayopacraires, ot TrpLaixevoi, ot exovres, 01
bioiKovvres, ot ■npayjj.aTivop.ivoi are mere synonyms for reXoovai, a term
which only occurs in [28] 9 and [29] 8, perhaps, as M. suggests, because
it was unpopular. Where the singular of any of these expressions is
used, the 'tax-farmer,' whether ap^coy/jj or puToxos, is generally meant.
Sometimes however one of them is equivalent to apxiovrjs, e.g. [34]
10-14, where o Tjyopaxo)?, o exi^v, and apxoivqs are interchanged.
[25.] I. Povkop.€vov: if the tax-farmer did not come, the yecopyot
might take matters into their own hands, [30] 4-13.
iT!i\heiv : cf P. P. xxiii (2) 3 €<^t5ety tov criropov. An example of
notice being given in accordance with this regulation is P. P. xl (6),
a letter from Dorotheus to Theodorus, no doubt a tax-farmer, yivcoa-Ke ^e
TpvyrjaovTa, k.t.X.
3. Probably the end of a regulation fixing the penalty in case the
yecopyot failed to give notice to the tax-farmer.
[25.] 4-16. 'When the cultivators wish to make wine, they shall
summon the tax-farmer in the presence of the oeconomus and anti-
grapheus or their agent, and when the tax-farmer comes, let the culti-
vator make wine, and measure it by the measures in use at each place,
after they have been tested and sealed by the oeconomus and anti-
grapheus ; and in accordance with the result of the measuring let him
pay the tax. If the cultivators disobey the law in any of these
particulars, they shall pay the tax-farmers twice the amount of the tax.'
7. ■napayivojj.ivov ; sc. tov hioiKovvros ; see [30] 13.
8. fxerpois : the utmost variety in respect of measures of capacity is
found in Ptolemaic Egypt. Hence the necessity, when metretae or
artabae were mentioned, to specify which metretes or artaba was meant ;
see [31] 6, [39] 2, [40] 11. The variations were not only between the
measures commonly used in different places, which are referred to here,
but also between different measures used in the same placCj as is shown
O
98 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
by the ever-recurring formula in Ptolemaic and even later contracts for
loans of wheat, airoStSorco .... fierpan cot km TTapet,\r](J3ev.
ID. e^rjTaa-jjievois : cf. [40] 19 and Leyden pap. Q, a receipt, as Wilcken
has pointed out, for the Kepa\xiov (i. e. airofjLOLpa) rrji, not rwt, 'i>L\abeX(ioi.
No special boKip^aa-T'qs is mentioned in the Revenue Papyrus, as there.
[26.] i-io. ' Those persons who already possess instruments for
making wine, shall register themselves before the tax-farmer, when . . .
and when they intend to make wine, they shall exhibit the seal which
has been stamped upon the instruments, unbroken. Any person who
fails to register himself, or to produce his instruments for inspection as
the law requires, or to bring them to be sealed up when the tax-farmer
wishes to seal them, or to exhibit the seal stamped upon them, shall
pay to the tax-farmers the amount of the loss which the tax-farmers
consider at the moment that they have incurred.'
I. Cf. [49] 10-13 ^n<^ [50] 2i-[51] II, parallel regulations concerning
the opyava for making oil.
4. Perhaps orav oivoTTOitLv fxeWcocrijv, cf. [25] 4.
7. 'napa(T(^payuTp.ov: cf. [51] 3, 8, and [46] 11 -jrapaacfipayiCea-dooaav ra
opyava Tov apyov tov xpovov, which explains this passage. ■napacrtjypayKTiJ.os
and ■7Tapaa(l>payi((crdaL are used for sealing up something, i. e. putting it
aside for the time : cf. [54] 18 and [57] 33.
10. Cf. [51] II and [55] 24, where the tax-farmers are allowed to
demand as much compensation as they like ; but see also [56] 13, where
the tables are turned upon them.
[26.] 11-17. 'If the cultivators gather the vintage and make wine
before the tax-farmer comes, let them (keep ?) the wine at the vats or
. . ., and when they hear (?) the first notice of the auction announced in
the town or village in which they live, they shall register themselves on
the same day or the one following, and shall exhibit the wine which
they have made, and the vineyard from which they have gathered the
crop prematurely.'
1 2. Faint traces of what are about the fourth and fifth letters of the
first word are visible, and they will not suit a-\vTai is not satisfactory.
This is a mere guess, but for fKOefia and €KTi6y]ixi in the sense of procla-
mation of a bid see [48] 16 and probably [33] 10 ; cf. P. P. 44. %o, L. P.
60, [8] 2 and 10. The length of time during which the taxes were put
up to auction is not stated in any part of the Revenue Papyrus which is
preserved, but in the next century it was ten days, L. P. [8] ix, and in
[48] 16, at the auction held by the contractors for the oil monopoly, ten
days are the period. If eKdejxa means ' proclamation ' or ' edict ' generally,
without reference to the auction, it is difficult to see what irpayrov
refers to. •
15. KarotKODcrt : cf. L. P. 6^. IOC tmv ev rats Kco/xais KaTOLKovvTcov \acap.
aiioypari,
in which payment is made in wine, cf. [31] 16 note, though there is no
royal oath.
13. in [31] a, which always imphes paying
as punishment of some sort, and evo(pet\ovixevris, which implies that the
payment was in arrear.
I04 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHLLADELPHUS.
[31.j 4. rtjuTji' : the figure in line 13 might be 8, but it is more
likely that the scale is a descending than an ascending one, and 9 is
much more probable. Here therefore the figure is probably greater
than 6.
On the value of wine in this century, see (i) P. P. Introd. p. 32,
where the price of \ xovs is 5 obols, and therefore the price of a metretes
at the same rate would be 13 drachmae 3 obols ; (2) App. ii. (5), where
the prices of a metretes vary between 5 and 11 drachmae Trpos ■)(akKov,
the average being between 7 and 8, i. e. nearly 7 silver drachmae, see
App. iii ; and (3) L. P. 60 (dzs) 15-16, of the third century B.C., where
the price of 16 cotylae is 6 drachmae, and in the next line 11 cotylae
at (ava) 2j obols each are worth 4 drachmae and f obol. The price
of a metretes of 8 choes would at the same rate be ^6 drachmae, and
even if the prices in 60 (dis) are irpos xoXkoz^, cf. App. iii, there is here
a great divergence from the other prices. But then as now the price
of wine of course depended on the age and vintage.
5 TToXirrjt: see Introd. p. xlviii. rvvaLKOTToXiTTjL, cf. Strabo 803 b,
is the most likely, if we are to look for a name not included in the
other list, [60]-[72]. HAtoTroAtnji, cf. [64] 3, appears to correspond to
AeAra in line 6. It is possible that the difference between this list and
that in [60]-[72] is due to the different periods at which they were
originally made. The list here cannot have been made out much before
the twenty-seventh year (see [38] i note), while the other list may have
been based upon an older classification.
\_Meve']kaLhi, : cf Strabo xvii. 23. Whether M.'s conjecture is right
or not, the Nitriote nome, cf. [61] 20, must be meant here, unless it
was omitted in this list. AeA.ra : cf. Strabo xvii. 4, and see Introd. 1. c.
The metretes of 8 choes was used for wine, cf. [32] 19, while the
ordinary metretes of 12 choes was used in measuring oil, [40] 11 and
[53] 20, and cf. note on [25] 8. The chous approximately six pints.
12. Kiiivqi-. cf. [71] 5 and 11. The Fayoum received the title of
the Arsinoite nome between the twenty-seventh and probably the thirtieth
year of Philadelphus, when the new title occurs in a letter among Cleon's
correspondence, P. P. 8. 2, in which Apollonius was still dioecetes of
the Fayoum; cf. [23] 2 and [38] 3. See also P. P. 36. 9 ?j avTov yi]
€v Tr)i Xiixv-qi a/3poxos ecrn. If the whole district is meant here, as seems
probable, the date of the change may be after Mesore of the twenty-
COMMENTARY. 105
ninth year. But the old name may have continued in occasional use
for a time after the Arsinoite nome became the official title ; cf.
App. ii. (2) 13 sv Tu>L \ifj.viTr]i, where the Fayoum appears to be
meant, in a papyrus which cannot be earlier than the twenty-seventh
year of Philadelphus.
14. When the tax was paid in money, not in kind, it was exacted
by the oeconomus, not the tax-farmer; cf. [29] 10 and [48] i, 8. Even
when it was paid in kind, the presence of the tax-farmer was not
essential and the tax could under certain circumstances be paid direct
to the oeconomus or his agent, [28] 9-16, and [30] 4-13. If the tax-
farmers were thus often reduced to the position of being mere spectators
of the payments, and were sometimes not even that, it may be asked
what purpose did they serve ? It was certainly not to save the govern-
ment trouble in collecting the a-nojxoipa, since their presence could be
dispensed with at the least provocation, while nothing could be done
without the oeconomus or his agents. But the tax-farmers were
necessary for two reasons, first because they enabled the government
to make an accurate estimate beforehand of its revenue, and secured
it against loss from a sudden fall in the value of crops ; and secondly
because the complicated system described here, of which the central
fact was the separation of tax-farmer and tax-collector, rendered it
as certain as any system could render it, that the Treasury received
what was due, the whole of what was due, and nothing but what was
due. For if the oeconomus attempted to defraud the government
either by granting exemptions or by peculations, the loss would fall
on the tax-farmers, who would then lose their surplus (see [34] 14),
and therefore had the strongest motive for seeing that the oeconomus
kept the accounts correctly, since every payment that was made to
the oeconomus belonged to them. On the other hand it was impos-
sible for the oeconomus to exact more than the legal amount of the
tax, because the amount was fixed by a contract between the tax-farmer
and the cultivator over which the oeconomus had no control. And
if the tax-farmer tried to extort more than what he was entitled to,
in one case, by the no less ingenious than equitable arrangement
described in [29] 13-20, he would find the tables turned on him ; and
in the other, [28] 5-8, he would have to submit his demands to the
oeconomus, who, having no interest in allowing the tax-farmers to
P
io6 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
increase their surplus at the expense of the tax-payers, and having
been expressly forbidden to take any part in tax-farming himself,
[15] 4, would have no motive for giving an unfair decision. So far
as mechanical safeguards could go, the interests both of the Exchequer
and the tax-payers were protected at every point. How the system
worked we have little means of judging, but it is probably more than
an accident that the Petrie papyri contain no complaints against unjust
taxation, for in P. P. 122 it is probably not the tax-farmers who are
to blame, but the eXaioKairriXoi, cf [48] 4, and the writer of the papyrus
in P. P. App. p. 3 only complains of wrongly awarded remissions of
taxes. Cf. note on [39] 14 for the position of the farmers of the oil
monopoly, which was somewhat different.
15. Ti/xas : the plural because the price varied in the different nomes ;
cf. [33] 6.
16. TO l3a(TL\LKov means here the royal bank, cf [34] 17. In practice
the aTTOjj.oipa on vineyards was often paid in money during the third
century, and in the next century all the evidence points to exclusive
payment in money ; see [37] 19 note.
[31.] 17-35- 'Stamping of receipts. The oeconomus shall establish
repositories for the wine in each village, and shall himself give a stamped
receipt for what is brought, to the cultivator . . . (The oeconomus shall
transport the wine from the vats(?)' added by the corrector).
17. For the correction of the third a in a-noa-^payia-jxaro^ cf. note
on [9] 3.
19. KOfj-iCnTai is passive, for the transport was usually done by the
yecopyos, cf [31] ai note and P. P. ix quoted in note on [30] 10. avTos
means that the oeconomus was to seal the receipt himself, cf [18] 2
(Tpayi(Tajxevos avTos. KU)p,apxr]i. is possible in line 20, cf [43] 3.
24. The meaning of this addition by the corrector is very obscure.
It is difficult to take Ko/xtfeo-^to in any other sense than transport,
but see previous note. The first two letters of 25 are very doubtful :
Wilck. thought they were not z/co but yeco, in which case yeu^pyu^v can
hardly be avoided. But this suits neither ex, nor, so far as I can see,
the context, and I have therefore conjectured ky]va>v, which may refer
to the exceptional cases mentioned in [26] 11-17.
[32.] ' The cultivator shall provide pottery for the repository, and
COMMENTARY. 107
. . . and the pottery shall consist of water-tight jars, which have been
tested and are sufficient for the wine payable to the tax-farmers. The
oeconomus and antigrapheus shall, . . days before the cultivators gather
the crops, give them the price of the pottery which each cultivator
has to provide for the tax in wine upon his own produce ; this price
shall be fixed by the dioecetes, who shall pay it to the oeconomus
and antigrapheus through the royal bank in the nome ; the cultivator,
on receiving the price, shall provide pottery of the best quality ; and if
he does not receive the price, he shall nevertheless provide the pottery,
but shall recover the price of it from the tax which he has to pay
in money.'
2. M. suggests Kri]pov, and ^M(TKo\i!ovy,eva in the next line; cf. [25]
10 note.
3. Kepajios : cf. [55] 4, P. P. xxx {c) and my corrections in P. P. App.
p. 7, and App. ii (5). \
4. ex: possibly uwep, but cf. [34] 10, and [29] 7 note.
5- Cf. [48] 15. The airoixoipa toov Lbicov yevrjfxaTcov appears to be
the ordinary tax on vineyards payable in wine while the a-nop.oipa ' of
which he has to pay the value' is the tax on vineyards when payable
in money, see [31] 4, and perhaps the tax on orchards besides. How
the case of a cultivator who paid the whole of his tax on vineyards
in wine and yet had no orchard, was to be met, if he did not receive
the price, is not explained ; but I suspect that the case is not mentioned,
either because it was not important, or because it was not likely to
occur. There are several places where, if the letter of the papyrus
be observed, there are inconsistencies or omissions, the importance of
which it is easy to exaggerate : cf. note on [42] 4.
10. Tr]v , it implies that he fixed the price of the pottery ;
and the fact that the singular is used not the plural, cf. 8 boruiaav,
P 2
io8 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHLLADELPHUS.
makes it difficult to suppose that the oeconomus is the subject, the
antigrapheus being omitted. Equally abrupt changes in the subject
are not rare in the papyrus, e.g. [54] i8, [49] 20, [48] 13, [34] 4.
hoTUiTav here means that the money was given outright not as a loan,
cf. [41] 16, and [43] 2, for otherwise there would be no reason for
the cultivators subtracting the price from the amount which they had
to pay.
II. Staypai/faro) : see note on [34] 14. The expression 'the royal
bank in the nome ' might seem to imply that there was only one, but
there were royal banks even in the villages, [75] i.
17- I have taken rt/xrji' as the object of aTrohowaL not of KOfjuCea-do},
for which ttjv rt/iiijz' has to be supplied : cf. [43] 16 and [48] 8. If
TL[j,riv be taken with Koiii^^aOai., and r?s as an accusative attracted into
the genitive, the a-Tro/^oipa in line 17 is the same as the airo/xotpa in line 9,
and in both cases means the tax on vineyards paid in kind, contrasted
with the tax paid in money, which is in some respects more satisfactory.
18. Perhaps Aa/x/Sarerw he. The price in question is probably that
which the yeutpyos was allowed to subtract from the a-noixoipa -qs Set
aiTobovvaL rrjy Tiij.r)v, if he did not receive the price of the jars.
19. Cf. note on [31] 6.
[33.] 2-8. ' The oeconomus shall examine the (wine) . . . and taking
with him the tax-farmer, the antigrapheus and his agent, shall jointly
with them sell the wine, giving the (tax-farmers?) time in which to
settle their accounts. He shall exact payment of the amounts and
shall put them down in the account of the tax-farmers to their credit.'
2. oaos : sc. oivos or Kaptios ; cf [34] 10.
6. hiopd(x>(TovTai, i.e. 'pay off the balance of what they owe' to the
Treasury; cf [56] 15, which shows that the tax-farmers are meant.
Kam^KoLs, cf [47] jo, is less likely, and k does not suit the vestiges of
the first letter. Perhaps reAcoj/ais, cf [28] 9.
7. \oyov: i.e. at the royal bank; cf [31] 16. [aTroTtz/]erQ) would suit
the lacuna, but it is not the right word, as there is no question of
a penalty here. We should expect xaraxcoptCero), cf [31] 16, for which
there is not room. Wilck. suggests [Trpoad^eTm.
[33. J 9-[34] I. 'The basilicogrammateis shall, within ten days from
the day on which they proclaim the auction, notify to the tax-farmers
COMMENTARY. 109
how many vineyards or orchards there are in each nome, with the
number of arourae which they contain, and how many vineyards or
orchards belonging to persons on the tribute list paid the tax to the
temples before the twenty-first year. If they fail to make out the
list, or it is discovered to be incorrect, they shall be condemned in
a court of law, and pay the tax-farmers for every mistake of which
they are convicted 6000 drachmae and twice the amount of the loss
incurred by them. All owners of vineyards or gardens on the tribute
list who paid the sixth to the temples before the twenty-first year,
shall henceforward pay it (to the tax-farmers).'
ID. €Kde.ii.a: see [26] 13 note, and cf. [48] 16. Here too there is
nothing in the papyrus for e/c6efxa to refer to, unless it be the auction.
Though ten days, as was shown, was probably the time during which
the tax was put up for sale, it is not clear whether that has anything
to do with the ten days here. The absence of irpcoTov, cf [26] 1 3, and
the fact that the tax-farmers had already entered upon their duties,
line 9, are in favour of eKdeji.a referring not to the proclamation of
the highest bid on the first day of the auction, or to a proclamation
that there was going to be an auction, but to the proclamation of the
final result.
13. (popoKoyia: cf. Ros. stone 12, airo rcov vnapxova-oiv ev ALyvnTcoi
irpo(Tob(ov KOt (}>opo\oyicov nvas \J.ev ets reXos acjyrjKev aWovs be KeKovcj)iK.ev ;
a second century B. C. fragment, Notices et Extraits xviii. {%) p. 413,
avaypa(f)ei €ls [ras] (j)opo\oyiai ; and B. M. pap. 401. 14, see M. Hermathena,
vol. ix, no. xxi, xai yTjs yj^prrov Kai aWris sktos 4)o{po)\oyias. It is
probable that the tpopoKoyiai were taxes on land, classified according
to the different kinds of produce, but not, as the a-rrofMOLpa, taxes on
the produce itself In that case the (popokoyia here would be the list
of cultivators of vineyards and orchards who paid cpopos, not a list
of all landowners, much less a list of all inhabitants. Cf. (i) P. P.
xliii (a) 4)opos ajXTTeXoivcav ; the fact that the cultivators had to pay
(popos on the land as well as aTrop.oi.pa on the produce is clearly shown
by the recurrence of some names found in this list in the companion
document xliii (d) (see note on [24] 14)^ ckttjs xat bsKar-qs i. e. aiTop.oi.pa.
Cf. AvTiTTarpoi Ar]p.r]Tpiov BepeviKibos aiyiakov in {a) I and {b) 51 : as there
is probably nothing lost between Ar]p.riTpiov and BepeviKihos, it appears
that he paid ao drachmae as cfiopos, but only 17 drachmae 4! obols
no REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
for aTTojuotpa, and therefore in his case <^opos was a slightly heavier
tax than aT!o\j.oipa, but whether he paid the sixth or the tenth as the
latter tax we do not know. Cf. also [a) 17 AirtScopos /cat Hy7j/;x[&)i'] to
■napa Haairos {tov\ Ilacnros with lines 13-14 of the second column
belonging to the e/vos) A\€^av(bpov) vr}(aov) o, i.e. 70 drachmae.
(2) P. P. xxix (a), a taxing list on vineyards, from the mentions
of the various /cArjpot suits (j)opos better than a-nop.oLpa, even apart from
the heading xai{pos ?) aixireX-wvoov.
(3) P. P. xxxix (z) is also, I think, an account of (popos, not anojxoipa ;
for there is no reference to wine, cf. xliii {a) 30 which belongs to the
e/cr?js Kai SeKarTjs, not to the o{po)X.oyLas, were not subject to the tax of a sixth. But in [36] 12-16
it is most explicitly laid down that all cultivators of vineyards or orchards
whatever were to pay the tax, except the priests, who, if the strict letter
of the papyrus is to be observed, seem exempt from both taxes. But
1. 31 of the Rosetta stone shows that before the ninth year of Epiphanes
a tax of a Kepapnov on each aroura of ap.iTe\iTis yr] belonging to the
temples was levied, and it is not likely that in Philadelphus' reign they
escaped this Kepafxiov, which I suspect took the place of opos in their
case.
14. There can be little doubt that the year is the same as that in
line 21. Though the a there has been mostly broken away, what is left
will not suit /3, and [36] 7 shows that from the twenty-second year
onwards the tax was paid to the government, not to the temples.
17. 6000 drachmae instead of i talent is remarkable, but there is no
doubt about the cipher, which recurs in [67] 17 and [70] 6.
21. The Sexarrj, cf [24] 10, is here ignored as in [36] 18 and [37] 16,
COMMENTARY. iii
probably because the tax was a sixth both when paid to the temples
and when first appropriated by the government. The payment of a
tenth by certain privileged classes was instituted between the twenty-
third year, see [36] a, and the twenty-seventh. Perhaps [33] i9-[34] i
represent the law as it was first promulgated, and have been allowed to
remain unmodified. But for the emphatic language of [36] and [37]
I should be inclined to think that the Sexarrj was simply omitted because
the vast majority of the tax-payers paid a sixth. Here, however, I think
the inconsistency has a real meaning.
The use of the cKrrj for the tax on vineyards as well as on -irapabeio-oi
removes any doubt as to the identity of the e/crrj in [36]-[37] with the
aiTOfjLoipa, which is moreover proved by other papyri, see note on [37] 19.
Much as the Egyptian fellah has been able to endure, he could hardly
have borne a tax of a sixth besides (popos and aTioixoipa, to say nothing of
oivoXoyia which is coupled with a-noixoipa in Wilck. Ostr. 711, of the third
century B.C., and which, since the payment is in kind, must be a tax
on produce.
[34.J I. TTji t\a8eA.^(i)i is possible, cf. [36] 10.
2-6. 'The tax-farmers shall within thirty days from the day on
which they purchase the tax, appoint sureties for a sum greater by one-
twentieth than the price agreed upon for the tax, and the sureties shall
register the property which they mortgage, in monthly instalments from
Dius to . . .'
2. Cf. [56] 14-18 and L. P. 62 [1] i3-[2] i. Something like ras 8e
KaTaypa(j)as t(ov ■xprjp.aTOiv is probably lost there in [1] 16. Karaypacjiij,
M.'s suggestion, is not found in the Revenue Papyrus, but cf. L. P. 62
[6] 12 avyKaTaypa(f>r](roiJ.€va>v. On the change of subject in iroiriaovTai,
cf note on [32] 10.
5. Alov: the first month of the Macedonian year. The taxes were
generally sold for a regnal year, [57] 4 note ; but there is not room for
the last month Hyperberetaeus in the lacuna, and the payments of the
oTTo/xoipa only extended over the summer months, cf. note on line 9
below.
7-8. ' The value of the wine which is received from the tax-
farmers for the Treasury shall be credited to the tax-farmers in the
instalments due from them.'
112 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
7. Cf. [53] i8-[54] 2. The wine ety to ^amXiKov was that required
for the king and court. As there is no regulation stating the price
which the king paid for the wine, probably it was the same as that
fixed in [3 ].
8. The e of Xoyet is partly effaced, perhaps intentionally. The use of
vnoX.oyi(ea-6ai, which rather implies a written transaction, and still more
the fact that the a-irofjLoipa if paid in money was received by the oeco-
nomus, [31] 16 note, and by him deposited in the royal bank, while if
paid in kind it was deposited by the yeMpyoi in the official v-iroboxi^ov,
[31] 19, so that in neither case was the payment really made by the
tax-farmers, seem to me irreconcilable with the hypothesis that avatpopa
means the actual payment. It is only the account of the receipts for
the month. Cf [53] 24, where the same difficulty recurs, and notes on
[16] 10 and [34] 9.
[34.] 9-[35]. 'Balancing of accounts. When all the produce has
been sold, the oeconomus shall take with him the chief tax-farmer and
his associates and the antigrapheus, and shall balance the accounts with
the chief tax-farmer and his associates. If there is a surplus left over,
he shall pay to the chief tax-farmer and his associates through the royal
bank the share of the surplus due to each member of the company.
But if there prove to be a deficit, he shall require the chief tax-farmer
and his associates and the sureties to pay each his share of it, the
payment to be exacted within the first three months of the following
year.'
9. 8taXoyto-/xoy : cf [18] 9-[19] 4- There is no mention here of
a monthly StaAoyto-juos : cf. [54] 2o-[55] 12, where nothing is said about
the final SiaAoytcr/nos of the oil-contract. It is difficult to say whether
much stress is to be laid on the omission in either case. On the whole
I think that here it has a meaning, for the accounts of the a'non.oipa were
kept in money, see [29] lo, [31] 15, [33] 5-8, [34] 6-7, which all deal
with Tijxai, cf. L. P. [4] 18 note, and no accurate balancing could be done
until the wine was sold, cf line 10. How often the sale took place is
uncertain, owing to the lacuna in [33] 2, but the prices received by the
oeconomus varied considerably, see App. ii (5), and note on [31] 4.
Moreover the receipts of the tax-farmers in the case of the airojioLpa
were limited to the summer months, and were not, like those of the
oil-contractors, spread over the whole year. It is quite possible there-
COMMENTARY. 113
fore that one general StaXoyio-fxo? was sufficient, but the term avacpopa,
whatever its precise meaning, shows that a certain amount was expected
each month (cf. [56] 17) from the tax-farmers, and the regulation con-
cerning the eyyvoL in [34] 4-6 implies that there was a monthly reckoning
of some kind.
Ti. rjyopaKcoy, ix"'^> ^^'^ ap^winj? are here interchangeable ; cf. note
on [24] 17.
14. einhiaypayj/aTOi : cf [19] 4 eTiiypa\j/aT(i> where there is no mention
of the royal bank, and [32] 10 where biaypacjieiv is used in the sense of
' paying through a bank.' Cf. Suidas quoted in Peyron's admirable note
on bLaypa(p€iv, Pap. Taur. i. p. 144. There is not room for 'npoabiaypa\l/aTU)
which is found in L. P. 6a [5] 5, 16, nor did the tax-farmers receive
anything besides the surplus, [12] 13 note. The fact that in one case
certainly, in the other probably, biaypacfxiv is used in the Revenue
Papyrus for payment through a bank, is however, as Wilck. remarked,
an accident, for the meaning of biaypacpetv was rightly decided by Peyron
to be 'pay' simply, whether through a bank, or, what is much more
frequent, to a bank; e.g. P. P. xlvi (c) 13 8tayey/)(a7rrat) eis r-qv . . .
Pa{cri.\iKriv) Tp{aT:eCav) ; L. P. 62 [4] ai, [5] 16, &c. Nevertheless the
agreement of the Revenue Papyrus with Suidas is remarkable.
18. The tax-farmers therefore as well as the sureties had to make up
the deficit, but in what proportions we do not know, since eTnjBaWov is
quite vague. We should expect that the government would extract
what it could from the tax-farmers and force the sureties to pay the
rest. But there is no regulation that the farmers' own property was
held in mortgage, and in the account of the 8iaAoyicrp,os in A [16]-[17],
the eyyvoi alone seem responsible for making up a deficit, while from the
two series of papyri which bear on this subject, we should gather that
the sureties were mainly, if not entirely, responsible. In P. P. xlvi the
surety apparently has to pay more than half the whole amount which
the tax-farmer had promised to the government, though the question is
complicated by the occurrence of the obscure term xo-^i^ov Trpos apyvpiov
(to adopt Wilcken's reading), on which see App. iii, and by an erasure,
which makes it uncertain whether the amount paid by the surety
coincided with his liability, or whether it was all that he was able to
pay. In the Zois papyri the surety is actually liable for the whole
amount promised by the tax-farmer. Unfortunately there are no details
Q
114 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
in either case concerning the failure of the tax-farmer to fulfil his contract
or of the penalty which he incurred, and presumably the loss to the
security in both cases was exceptional. The fact however remains that
to be surety for a tax-farmer must have been an extremely burdensome
\eiTovpyia, and it is surprising that any one could have been found to
undertake the duty except under compulsion. This I suspect was
exercised both in the case of the eyyvoi, and even in the case of the
tax-farmers, though not formally admitted either in the Revenue Papyrus
or in L. P. 63, in which a large amount of space is devoted to the
sureties, [1] i3-[3] 16. The edict of Tiberius Alexander C. I. G. iii.
4957 has a significant passage, line lo fif. eyvi>iv yap irpo iravros evXoyca-
TaTTjv ovaav T-qv evrev^Lv Vjxuiv virep tov fj-rj aKovras avQpoynovs els reKcoveias ?)
aAXas ixicrOcaaeis ovcriaKas -napa to kolvov edos tcov eitap^eiuiv Trpos jSiai)
ayeadai, k.t.X., which shows that the position of the tax-farmers and
a fortiori that of the eyyvoi had become intolerable. Cf. L. P. 6a
[5] 3, which shows the difficulty of finding tax-farmers.
[35.] 3. Ka\€i.iT6co(Tav : cf [8] 3 and [21] 12. ot ahKovjxivoi are probably
the tax-farmers who had not received the surplus due to them.
With this section the law concerning the airofioipa comes to an end.
The next two columns give the decrees by which the second Ptolemy
effected the ' disendowment of the Church ' or state religion.
[36.] 1—2. The conclusion of a -npourayp.a enclosing a irpoypa/n/xa
[36] 3-[37] I, which quotes a previous ■npoa-Tayjxa [37] a-9. This in
turn introduces the -npoypamia [37] 10-20. The sequence of these four
documents in point of time is therefore the exact reverse of their written
order.
[36.] 3-19- 'The basilicogrammateis of the nomes throughout the
country shall, each for his nome, register both the number of arourae
comprised by vineyards and orchards and the amount of the different
kinds of produce from them, cultivator by cultivator, beginning with the
twenty-second year, and shall separate the land belonging to the temples
and the produce from it in order that the rest of the land may (be
determined), from which the sixth is to be paid to Philadelphus, and
they shall give a written account of the details to the agents of Satyrus.
Similarly both the cleruchs who possess vineyards or orchards in the
lots which they have received from the king, and all other persons who
COMMENTARY. 115
own vineyards or orchards or hold them in gift or cultivate them on
any terms whatever shall, each for himself, register both the extent of
his land and the amount of its different kinds of produce, and shall give
the sixth part of all the produce to Arsinoe Philadelphus for a sacri-
fice and libation (to her).'
4. This passage shows clearly that there was one jSaaiXiKos ypajiixarevs
in each nome, though cf. P. P. 138 («), where the plural is found. But
probably the officials of more than the one nome are there meant, cf. [37]
3-5. Though in the Fayoum the oeconomus was undoubtedly an officer
of a f^epts, not of the whole nome (see P. P. xviii. (i) 2), we do not know that
the other nomes were divided into jxepihes, and on the whole the Revenue
Papyrus points to the oeconomus being under ordinary circumstances an
officer of the whole nome, though it is by no means conclusive, for
throughout the papyrus officials are nearly always spoken of in the
singular, even when there were many bearing the same title, e. g. the
comarch, [40] ^-^.
6. yevriixaTa : the plural because referring to both aixTreXooves and Trapa-
beio-oL, but perhaps with a secondary reference to the different kinds of
produce included under the head of TrapaSetcrot ; cf. [24] I'Z note.
7. OTTO Tov KjSL : the meaning is that the irpoypap.jj.a is to be retro-
spective, though issued between Dius and Daisius of the twenty-third
year, cf. [37] 9 with [36] 3. The Leyden papyrus Q gives us actual
proof that the tax was paid to Arsinoe, not to the temples, on the
produce of the twenty-second year, though the transaction recorded by
that papyrus, the payment of ao drachmae for the Kepap.iov ttjl 4>iAa8eA.(/)tot
by the hoKip.a(TTj\s to the TrpaKTwp, is dated in the twenty-sixth year, and
the payment was therefore some years in arrear, which explains the
mention of the TTpaKToup ; cf. note on [6] i.
8. I am indebted to Wilcken for the restoration of this important
passage, which shows that the lepa yrj was exempt from the ckttj. It is
not surprising that Philadelphus, while diverting the revenue of the
older gods to the new goddess Arsinoe, hesitated to demand a tax for
the deified Arsinoe upon land actually belonging to the gods, ravra is
a mistake for ra ; cf. line 6.
10. rrjt i>LXabe\tAa6eA0a)t,
sometimes a-noixoipa ttji ^LkaheXcjxiiL, see note on [37] 19, is all in favour
of the first view.
It is hardly necessary to point out that the exrrj rrji ^iXaheX^coL was
collected and paid ets to fiaa-LkiKov like any other tax. The dvaia Kai
a-novbr] was an ingenious but transparent fiction to cloak the disendow-
ment of the temples.
[37.] I. avTiypa(pov probably refers to the following Trpoarayixa: see
note on [36] i.
[37.] 2-9. 'King Ptolemy to all strategi, hipparchs, captains, no-
marchs, toparchs, oeconomi, antigrapheis, basilicogrammateis, Libyarchs,
and chiefs of police, greeting. I have sent you the copies of my procla-
mation, which ordains the payment of the sixth to (Queen) Philadelphus.
Take heed therefore that my instructions are carried into effect. Fare-
well. The twenty-third year, Dius the twenty . . .'
a. While the strategus already in the third century B.C. combined
civil with military duties (see M., P. P. Introd. p. 7 and Wilck. Anmerk.
Droysen Kl. Schr. p. 437), the papyri in which he is mentioned either are
or may be later than Philadelphus' reign (including even P. P. ii, cf. note
on [57] 4) ; and probably at this period the position of the strategus was
still in the main military. At any rate the rjyffxcav was a military officer,
so that there is a strong probability that the official whose title is lost in
COMMENTARY. 117
the lacuna, was a military one also, and that the civil officials come
afterwards. Neither the einoTpaTTjyos nor the vnoarpaTrjyos has yet been
found in the third century B. c, while nrirapxiai are frequently found in
P. P. There is an unpublished papyrus of that collection which begins
AyaOibi (sic) (rTpaTr\y(xii km iTnrapx.')'-
3. 7)ye/xo(7t. The hegemones are thus subordinate to the strategi ;
nevertheless the Romans chose this title as an equivalent for the
praefectus. Cf. an inscr. at Alexandria, salle G, KaWiarparos r)yep,a>v
KaL ot Terayixevoi vtt avrov trTparttorat. This inscription has been asserted
by Strack (Mitth. d. K. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. Athen, 1894, p. 237) to
be a forgery, but on very inadequate grounds. He adduces four argu-
ments, (i) The writer of the inscription took account of the rough-
nesses of the stone, leaving a space where there was a hole or excrescence.
But this only proves that the writer did not select a very smooth piece
of stone, and by itself is no argument for the date. (3) Strack objects
that the second title of Ptolemy Epiphanes, Euxaptoroy, is absent. But
the second title is omitted on coins, cf. Poole Catalogue, PI. xxxii. 7,
which has YlToXeixaiov ET:i4>avovs, and Epiphanes and Cleopatra are
always called deoi ein^avus simply. (3) Strack remarks that Callistratus,
being a Greek, ought to have his father's name mentioned, an argument
which is very far from being conclusive. (4) He says that (jye/ucoi- by itself
without eTT avhpuiv is in a Ptolemaic inscription an anachronism, an argu-
ment which is refuted not only by this passage in the Revenue Papyrus,
but by L. P. 45 verso line i, and P. P. xlv, cols. % and 3. Cf. pap. 3a
in my A. E. F. which has -qyejxuiv . . . . km ol a-TpaTLuiTM, like the
inscription. Finally the inscription has every appearance of antiquity ;
and it is not at all likely that a forged Greek inscription should have
found its way into the Alexandria Museum, when a forger could spend
his time much more profitably by turning his attention to 'twelfth
dynasty' stelae, papyri, or scarabs.
voiJ.apxMs KM TOTTapxais : see [41] 16 note. In P. P. 138 the nomarchs
are put after the oeconomi in the list of officials ; but cf. [41] 7, which
agrees with this passage in giving precedence to the nomarch. There
can be no doubt that this is the right order.
4. oiKovop.ois : see [36] 4 note.
5. Ai^vapyais. A Aifivi.p\r]s t&v /cara Kvp-^vqv tottcov is mentioned in
Polyb. XV. 25. 12, but I agree with M., who thinks that the Libyarchs of
ii8 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
the Rev. Pap. were officials of the nome Libya, which included a wide
district. Cf. the terms Apa[3apxris and, in the second century B.C. papyri,
©rj/3apxo?. This passage shows that the Libyarchs ranked much lower
than the nomarchs in the official hierarchy ; cf. [41] i6 note.
The absence of the e-KLfjiekrjTrjs from not only this list of officials but
the whole Revenue Papyrus is remarkable, for he is often mentioned
in L. P. 62, 6^ with the other financial officials. Cf. Rev. R. E. v. 44,
and P. P. 61. I (fifth year), and 108. 2 (eighth year). Both papyri may
be forty or fifty years later than the Revenue Papyrus, especially the
second, in which the drachmae are copper ; see App. iii. There is
therefore no direct evidence that the title was used at this time. But
the office and title probably existed nevertheless.
6. The 9 of Kad, if 6 it be, is very irregularly formed and joined
to the o.
7. Cf P. P. [122] 6, and App. p. 8.
[37.] lo-ao. ' Owners of vineyards or orchards, whatever their tenure,
shall all give to the agents of Satyrus and the accountants who have
been appointed agents of Dionysodorus, nome by nome, a written state-
ment, which statement shall be given by themselves in person or by the
agents or tenants of their estates from the eighteenth to the twenty-first
year, and shall contain both the amount of the different kinds of pro-
duce and the name of the temple to which they used to pay the sixth
due, together with the amount of the sixth in each year. Similarly
the priests also shall give a written statement of the estates from which
they severally derived a revenue, and the amount of the tax in each
year, whether paid in wine or in silver. Likewise the basilicogrammateis
shall send in a written statement of all these details.'
II. Satyrus: cf Strabo xvi. 4; a general of Philadelphus bearing
this name was sent on an expedition to obtain elephants and explore
the country of the Troglodytes. But it is not likely that he was the same
person as this Satyrus, who must have held a high financial office at
Alexandria, and possibly was the dioecetes par excellence, while 01
■napa ^arvpov may have been the ordinary dioecetae together with their
clerks and subordinates. Cf [18] 6, where the eKXoyicrTr]s is coupled
with the biOLKrjTrj^.
14. The twenty-first year was the last in which the tax was paid
to the temples ; cf note on [36] 7, and [33] 14. The information was
COMMENTARY. 119
required in order that the tax-farmers might be able to take the
average of the four preceding years as their basis in bidding for the
tax.
Wilck. suggests STjAovtras at the end of the line, which makes the
construction easier, but I am not sure that it is necessary.
17. KTTjjuaTos, as Wilck. pointed out to me, refers not to the Krjyjuara
of private persons mentioned in line 14, but to the tepa y?j belonging
to the temples ; cf. [36] 8, which explains this passage. The government
wished to ascertain the number of vineyards and orchards belonging
to the priests, in order that they might be exempted from the tax,
not in order that they might pay it.
18. While this passage shows that the priests received the rent of
their own Krjjjuara partly in money, partly in kind, it is not stated
whether the e/crrj which they received from the KTrn^ara of other persons
was paid in the same way. But in exacting the tax on irapaSettroi
in money always, and that on ainreXoaves in money under certain con-
ditions, the government was probably continuing the regulations in
force when the airoiMoipa was paid to the temples.
19. [kJoi 01: the position of the fragments at the end of this line
is doubtful. For no tax of the Ptolemies have we more information
than for the awo/xoipa, but it is not easy to arrange it chronologically.
There is : — (i) Leyden pap. Q (see note on [36] 7), a receipt for the
Kepa/xtoi' rrjt iA.o8eA.^cot, dated the twenty-sixth year of Philadelphus.
(3) The Revenue Papyrus. (3) Wilck. Ostr. 711, a receipt for the pay-
ment of anojioipa and otroAoyia in kind, dated the fifth year, probably of
Euergetes', perhaps of Philopator's reign. (4) A papyrus at Dublin,
C^ No. 9 of my A. E. F., &c., dated the eighth year, which mentions
the a-KOjxoipa Trjs t[A.aSeA.^oi;. From the close resemblance of the hand-
writing to that of the wills dated the tenth year of Euergetes in P. P.
part I, M. assigns this papyrus to Euergetes' reign. This document
and P. P. xlvii. (see below) are conclusive evidence that the airo/xotpa
of [24]- [35] is identical with the eK-rq of [33], [36], and [37]. (5) P. P.
part I, xvi. (2), which records the payment of the tax on the produce of
TTapabeifTOL in silver, and is dated the seventeenth year of Euergetes.
(6) P. P. xxvii, and (7) xxx (e), which record the payment of the eKrri in
kind upon vineyards, and in silver on irapabeiaoi, dated the twenty-third
year, probably of Euergetes, but possibly of Philadelphus. (8) P. P.
I20 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
XXX {c), in which the e/cr?; upon vineyards is assessed partly in kind,
partly in silver, that upon irapaSeto-ot in silver. (9) P. P. xliii [b) enTrj kul
bemri), in which aiJ.TT(\cov€s are assessed partly in kind, partly in silver, and
■napabeio-oi, in silver; cf. note on [34] 13. This papyrus and (8) are before
Epiphanes' reign, see App. iii. (10) P. P. xlvi (see note on [34] 18), dated
the second and fourth years of Epiphanes, which refers to the a-noixoipa
T7)j iAa8eA^tt)t (of no. 3) Kai rots ^iKo-naTopcri Oeois. (11) Wilck. Ostr.
33a = R. E. vi. p. 7, no. a, a receipt for 3280 drachmae paid to the
royal bank in the sixth year of a Ptolemy. Wilck. R. E. 1. c. assigned
it on palaeographical grounds to Euergetes I, but the fact that the
drachmae are copper makes it much more probable that it belongs
to Epiphanes' reign; see App. iii. (13) Rosetta stone, lines 13-15,
TTpoaiTa^e be Kai ras TTpoaobovs tuiv lepmv /cat ras bLbojxevas ets aura KaT
eviavTov avvTa^fis crtrt/cas re km apyvpiKas o/;ioicos be ku ras KaOrjKovcras
aTionoipas rots 6eois airo re rrjs ajXTreXiribos yqs /cai rv. The oil was manufactured
in an eXaiovpyiov or epyaarqpiov, see [44], [45].
Kadapas : cf. irvpos pvnapos in Wilck. Ostr. 768, and a papyrus at
Alexandria, M. Bull, de Corr. Hell, xviii. p. 145, line 13 . . .'\p.aTa ano
TTjs aX.00 (Tvv TcoL KoviopTcoi ap te, and line 17 a-noKaQapa-is tqv aiTOv.
II. The 'sign' for apra^a is to be explained as ap with a stroke over
it to mark the abbreviation, the top of the p being added separately :
cf [46] 17 where the same sign occurs, but without a stroke over it.
In [53] 16 the loop of the p is joined to the a, while the tail has almost
disappeared. In [60] 25 and the succeeding columns the sign is drawn
without lifting the pen from the papyrus, the form found most commonly
in the Petrie papyri. The addition of a curved line above, i. e. v, trans-
forms it into the ' sign ' for apovpa, as is clearly shown by pap. ^^ of
my A. E. F. Cf. also [57] 12 and [59] 13, where artaba is represented
by a with a stroke after it, which may be p or a sign of abbreviation.
[39.] 13-18. 'The contractors shall receive from the cultivators, for
the tax of 2 drachmae payable on the sesame and the tax of i drachma
on the croton, sesame and croton at the value decreed in the legal tariff,
and shall not exact payment in silver.'
13. That the contractors are the persons meant throughout [39] and
[40] is evident from numerous passages in the following columns. Cf.
[39] 13 with [41] 10 and [54] 23; and [40] 9 with [49] 18; and see
[53] 16 note.
14. The tax was levied on each artaba, see [41] 10 and [57] 12 =
[59] 13, and thus amounted to one-fourth of the value in the case of
sesame and croton. No tax was levied on cnecus, colocynth, and flax.
COMMENTARY. 127
the growth of which was not regulated by the central government,
though the distribution of all crops was supervised by the nomarch, see
note on [41] 16. On the other hand the precise amount of sesame and
croton to be grown throughout the country is fixed in [60]-[72].
Since the contractors paid the cultivator 8 drachmae for an artaba
of sesame but received 2 drachmae back in sesame, why is there not one
regulation that they should pay the cultivator 6 drachmae, instead of
two regulations, one that they should pay him 8 drachmae, the other
that he should pay them two ? It is quite certain that the contractors
were the same in both cases, see [41] lo-ii. Yet there is no mention
of the tax in the StaXoyicryxos [54] 20-[55] la, and since the sesame and
croton collected as the tax must have been made into oil, like the sesame
and oil bought by the contractors, it is impossible that the account of
the tax should have been kept separate from the other accounts, and
administered according to the regulations laid down in A for farming
the taxes. As the effect of the tax on sesame and croton was to reduce
one element in the cost of making oil, the piice of the seeds, by oner
fourth, probably the tax was ignored in the accounts, and the price of
sesame and croton treated as 6 and 3 drachmae for an artaba.
The only explanation of the circumlocution which I can suggest is
that the government wished to draw a nominal distinction between the
VTToreXets here and the areXets in [43] II, though in reality the areXety
received scarcely anything more for their produce than the vTroreXets.
The position of ot -npiafxevoi rqv eXaiK-qv differs considerably from that
of ot Ttpiafievoi in A and B. The latter contracted to pay a iixed sum
for a tax the amount of which was uncertain. If the tax produced more
than what they had agreed to pay, the surplus went to them ; if it
produced less, they had to bear the loss. On the other hand the
contractors of the oil monopoly agreed to pay the government a fixed
sum for the profits arising from the sale of oil [45] a and [55] a, and
here there seems little room for a deficit or a surplus such as that
mentioned in A and B. The precise cost of manufacturing a metretes
of oil was fixed beforehand, [55] a-12, as was the retail price, [40] 9-16,
and since the amount of sesame and croton to be made into oil in each
nome was fixed in [59]-[72], the number of metretae that could be sold
was also limited. The only elements of uncertainty were (i) the price
received by the contractors from the retailers, which was fixed by
128 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
auction, [48] 14. (2) The amount of oil produced from a given amount
of seed could not be anticipated with absolute precision, but apparently
there was a fixed amount of oil expected from each artaba, and if the
amount of oil actually produced was above the average, this surplus
belonged not to the contractors, but to the Treasury [58] 8. (3) The
number of metretae sold might fall short of the contractors' expectations,
and they received less for oil remaining over when the contract expired
than for the oil which they had sold, [53] 14. (4) The duty on foreign
oil brought into the country was paid to the contractors, [53] 20, and
the amount of this would be uncertain. But the margin for either profit
or loss, so far as the contractors were concerned, was extremely narrow,
and the absence of any regulation like that in [18] 9 and [34] 9-21
might be thought to show that there was no margin at all. Still, as the
actual profit made by the sale of the oil must have had a definite relation
to the sum promised by the contractors, it is probable that any surplus
or deficit on the whole contract was treated in the usual way.
On the other hand there are good reasons for supposing that such
a surplus was likely to be very unimportant. These are : (i) the absence
of any regulation providing for the contingency ; (2) the use of e-niyivrijxa
in C, not for the surplus above the total amount which the contractors
had agreed to pay, but for the profit on the sale of each metretes of
oil, i.e. the difference between the cost and the selling price, [41] 11 ;
(3) the fact that the contractors received a portion of this eTriyevrjjua
as their jxiaOos or pay, [45] 6, [55] 13-16, while in A and B there
is no hint of a ixiaOos for the tax-farmers, [31] 14 note. In A and
B the government by farming out the taxes secured a fixed revenue,
while the tax-farmers were allowed the opportunity of making a surplus.
In C the government farmed out the oil-monopoly, not in the least
to secure a fixed revenue, for the revenue from it was fixed already,
but to ensure the economical manufacture of the oil, while the tax-
farmers received a definite reward for their labour in superintending the
manufacture and sale of the oil instead of an indefinite surplus.
It is in their capacity of manufacturers far more than in their
capacity of tax-farmers that ol npiaixivoi i-qv eXaiKxiv were necessary to
the government, and for that reason throughout C I have translated
01 TTpia^xivoi ' contractors.'
17. See notes on lines i and 3.
COMMENTARY. 129
[39.] i9-[40] 8. 'The cultivators shall not be allowed to sell either
sesame or croton to any persons other than the contractors . . . and the
contractors shall give the comarch a sealed receipt for what they have
received from each cultivator ; if they do not give him the receipt, the
comarch shall not allow the produce to leave the village. If he disobeys
this rule, he shall pay 1000 drachmae to the Treasury, and five times the
amount of the loss which his action may have caused, to the contractors.'
[40.J 3. See note on [39] 13 ; line 7 also shows that the contractors
are meant. aTroo-(^payto-/Lia : cf. [31] 17.
5. TTpoiecrdca : cf. [27] 11.
[40.] 9-20. 'The contractors shall sell the oil in the country at the
rate of 48 dr. for a metretes of sesame oil containing 12 choes and
for a metretes of cnecus-oil, accepting payment in copper, and at the rate
of 30 dr. for a metretes of cici, colocynth oil, and lamp oil' (altered
to 'The contractors shall sell the oil in the country, both sesame oil,
cnecus oil, cici, colocynth oil, and lamp oil at the rate of 48 dr. for
a metretes of la choes, accepting payment in copper, and 2, obols for
a cotyle '). In Alexandria and the whole of Libya they shall sell it at
the rate of 48 dr. for a metretes of sesame oil, and 48 dr. for a metretes
of cici (altered to '. . . 48 dr. for a metretes of sesame oil and cici, and
a obols for a cotyle '), and they shall provide an amount sufficient to meet
the demands of buyers, selling it throughout' the country in all the towns
and villages, (measuring it) by measures which have been tested by the
oeconomus and antigrapheus.'
9. That the government were able to suddenly raise the price of the
inferior oils more than 50 per cent., making them equal in value to the
superior oils, shows the gulf which separates ancient from modern political
economy. It is difficult to see why any one should have bought e. g. oil
of colocynth, when he could get sesame oil at the same price. As M.
suggests, it was probably with the object of maintaining the demand for
sesame oil that the government levelled up the price of cici, colocynth,
and lamp oil to that of sesame and cnecus oil.
10. TTpoi x°-^'^°^'- ^^^ -^PP- ii^" To anticipate, this passage means
that a88 of the large copper coins which represent the obol (or an
equivalent amount of the smaller ones) would be accepted as the
equivalent of 48 silver drachmae, although in reality 48 drachmae thus
s
I30 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
paid in copper were worth about lo per cent, less than 48 drachmae
paid in silver. Since however the contractors of the oil monopoly not
only received payments in copper but made them in copper to the
government, [58] 6, the loss by the exchange fell on the government,
not on them. The eAoiKT] (ovr] was in fact an uivr] irpos xa\Kov laovojxop,
cf L. P. 63 [5] 19. Literally ■n-pos x°-^'^°'' means 'against copper,'
cf. x"-^i(ov TTpoi apyvpiov, and my explanation of it in App. iii p. 204.
The Petrie papyri have as yet yielded no information concerning the
price of oil in the third century B.C., which, as the correction here shows,
varied largely from year to year. The Sakkakini papyrus however,
of the third century B.C. (Rev. R. E. iii. 89), mentions frequently the
payment of i obol for cici. M. Revillout suggests that the amount was
2 cotulae, which would make the price of a metretes 1% drachmae.
This suits his conclusions about the price of oil in the next century, but
is hardly compatible with the 30 dr., still less with the 48 dr., which the
Revenue Papyrus states to be the price of a metretes of cici. I should
therefore suggest that the obol was the price of \ cotyle or at most of
I cotyle. On the price of oil in the second century B.C. see note on
[51] 12.
eiTikkvxviov : see note on [39] 7. While the retail price of oil is here
fixed at 48 dr. irpos x^-'^Koy, the contractors did not receive 48 drachmae,
as most of the selling, if not the whole, was done by small traders, [47]
10 sqq., to whom the contractors sold the oil by auction.
II. On the metretes of la choes see notes on [25] 8, [31] 6, and
[55] 8.
14. iraarjL : i. e. including the a(l>u>pLafxivr], the produce of which was
reserved for Alexandria, [60] 10 and [61] 3. It is obvious that the
nome Libya had no very clearly defined boundary. Cf [37] 5 note.
15. Cnecus, colocynth, and linseed oil are omitted, though they must
have been required in Alexandria, cf [53] aa, and [58] i note. Probably
they were sold at the same price as sesame oil and cici ; cf. [42] 4
note.
16. Trjv written above pL-q means that ■n]v be KOTv\r}v, written in line 15,
comes in here. Cf. [41] a; and [43] 25, where, a note having been
inserted, the next few letters of the following sentence are written in
order to fix the place of the note.
19. Cf the similar precaution in [25] 10.
COMMENTARY. 131
[41.] 3-13. 'They shall exhibit the land sown to the contractor in
conjunction with the oeconomus and antigrapheus, and if, after surveying
it, they find that the right number of arourae has not been sown, both
the nomarch and the toparch and the oeconomus and the antigrapheus
shall, each of them who is responsible, pay a fine of two talents to the
Treasury, and to the contractors for each artaba of sesame which they
ought to have received a dr., and for each artaba of croton i dr., together
with the surplus of the oil and the cici. The dioecetes shall exact the
payment from them.'
3. a7ro8et^arcoo-az^ : i. e. the nomarch and toparch ; cf. [43] 3.
5. TO ttXtjOos: the number decreed in [60]-[72]. Only sesame and
croton are meant in this column.
ID. The reference is to [39] 13-18.
II. TO einyeinifj,a tov ekaiov is the whole difference between the cost
price and the selling price of sesame oil, not merely the share of this
surplus which the contractors received as pay for their trouble in super-
intending the manufacture, cf. [45] a note, and [55] 9. It was this
surplus which the contractors had agreed to pay to the Treasury, and
they are here completely secured against loss from a deficiency in the
crop, cf. note on [39] 14. ekaiov, when coupled with Kt/ct, means sesame
oil here, as in [51] ai, 2,4, [53] 20, [57] 16, and [60] 16; cf. B. M.
pap. xxi. 24. In [47] 14 and [48] 4, however, eAatoz; appears to include
all the oils except cici, for cnecus, colocynth, and lamp oil must have
been distributed to the kotttjAoi like sesame oil and cici. This argument
is not conclusive, since in several places cnecus, colocynth, and lamp oil
are ignored, and we are left to assume the arrangements concerning
them from the regulations concerning sesame and cici ; see [42] 4 note.
But [47] 7 (Kaarov yevovs, not eKarepov, is strongly in favour of more than
two oils being meant ; cf. [42] 1 2 exao-ra Kara yevos, where at least three
kinds of produce are referred to, and [54] 23, where (Kaarov yevovs means
all the five kinds of produce mentioned in [39] 1-7. That the phrase
TO fkaiov KM KiKi was felt even at the time to be ambiguous, is shown by
[49] 18, where to ekaiov ought from the context to include cnecus oil as
well as sesame, and it is more probable that the first hand intended it to
do so than that he omitted cnecus oil by mistake. But the corrector
was not satisfied with the clearness of the phrase, for after to ekawv he
inserted to (ni)(Tafuvov r\ to Kvr\Kivov.
132 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
It follows from this frequent use of ikaiov for sesame oil that where
eXaiov is found in papyri of this period, meaning one kind of oil, the
presumption is that sesame oil is meant: e.g. P. P. part I, 78. 7.
13. On the dioecetes see note on [38] 3. e^co opa at the end of the
line, ' look outside,' calls attention to the fact that a note on the verso is
to be inserted at this point : cf. [43] a. -
[41.] 20-27. 'The contractor shall give orders with respect to the
sesame and croton to be grown for other nomes, and (if the due amount
is not sown) the dioecetes shall exact the amount from the officials who
have received the orders, and shall pay it to those nomes which ought
to have received the sesame and croton '. (Added by the corrector.)
20. Though the lacunae are too great to be filled up with any
certainty, this section clearly supplements the foregoing one, and pro-
vides for the case in which the deficiency affected the sesame and croton
to be grown for other nomes. Since some nomes did not grow enough
sesame for their own consumption, e. g. the Heracleopolite, [70] 13, while
many of them did not grow enough, or even any, croton^ e. g. Libya
[61] 7, and the Nitriote nome, [61] 22, the deficiency was made good by
making other nomes grow more than was required for their own con-
sumption. It is noticeable that the case of sesame and croton being
thus transferred from one nome to another is not provided for in the
original draft of [39]-[56], but is frequently mentioned in the StopScojuara,
as here, [43] 21, and [57] 8-13, where the general regulation concerning
it is laid down.
The use of eSet and eia-Trpa^as and the mention of the dioecetes, all
agreeing with 3-13, show that ao-37 refer only to the case in which the
proper number of arourae had not been sown, and are not a general
statement.
21. The letters at the end of the line do not suit Trpocr; the papyrus
is deeply stained here, and I am not certain that the piece containing
the end of this line is in its correct place.
37. Cf note on [40] 16.
[41.] 14-19. 'Before the season comes for sowing the sesame and
croton, the oeconomus shall give the official in charge of the distribution
of crops, be he nomarch or toparch, if he desires it, for the seed sufficient
for sowing an aroura of sesame 4 drachmae, and for the seed sufficient
COMMENTARY. 133
for an aroura of croton a drachmae, and he shall transport the seed
from the store instead of . . .'
16. vojji.os I consider is here equivalent to vo\xr] in the sense of 'distri-
bution,' as it is in the sense of ' pasture,' cf. Hesych. No/xoV, voit,riv ; and
[43] 3, where rcav apovpmv probably goes with vojjlov, not a-aopov ; and
P. P. XXX {d), a list made out by a nomarch of various crops sown in
the Fayoum. The Fayoum was for this purpose divided into several
ro/xopx'at, called after their respective nomarchs ; e. g. there is the
voixapxia NiKoavos in P. P. part I. 63 (3)4; Aioyevovs in part II. 46. 8;
A)(o\Tnos, tAnnroD, and Maip-axov in xxxix. Not until the second century
B.C. do we find the nomarch often identified with the strategus, and
therefore chief of the ' nome.' I am fully aware of the boldness of
taking yo/nov here in any other sense than that of ' nome,' though ' nome '
itself of course originally meant a ' division.' But the difficulty of taking
TTpoea-TrjKOis tov vop.ov here as ' chief of the nome ' appears to me over-
whelming. The absence of an article before TOTtapxn^ shows that the
phrase tcol irpoea-TriKon tov vo}xov applies as much to the toparch as to the
nomarch, i. e. the ' chief of the nome ' could be either a nomarch or
a toparch, cf [43] 3, where the nomarch need not be ' chief of the nome,'
and [24] 6 note. Now, since we know from the Petrie papyri that there
were several nomarchs in a nome, the phrase irpoearriKons tov vop.ov would
mean that one of these nomarchs occupied a superior position to the
others, and that he is the person referred to here and in [43] 3, while in
the other passages the ordinary nomarchs are meant. This draws an
artificial distinction between two kinds of nomarchs, which does not in
the least suit the passages where they are mentioned in this papyrus or
elsewhere. On the other hand, if this difficulty is avoided by taking the
phrase ' chief of the nome ' as applicable to all nomarchs, the phrase
becomes purely otiose in this passage, except in so far as it applies to
the toparch, and the papyrus is self-contradictory, for in [43] 3 it is
stated that the ' chief of the nome ' is not always the nomarch. But if
the difficulty of the phrase ' chief of the nome,' even as applied to the
nomarch, is great, the difficulty of applying it equally to the toparch,
a consequence which necessarily follows from the absence of the article
before TOTrapxnh is much greater. There are only two possible con-
ditions under which a toparch could be ' chief of the nome.' Either
there were some nomes in which there were no nomarchs at all, and
134 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
their functions were performed by toparchs, or the nomarchs might all
be away on leave and hence a toparch might become for a time ' chief of
the nome.' For, as has been shown, there were several nomarchs at any
rate in the Fayoum, and if only one went away, his place would obviously
be filled by another nomarch, not by a toparch who was necessarily
subordinate to a nomarch. But both of these suppositions are equally
unsatisfactory. So far from it being probable that certain nomes had
no nomarchs, all the evidence we have points to their being universal,
while we know for certain that in some nomes there are no toparchs, see
Strabo 787 «« yap ToirapxCas ot irXeicn-oi (wjuot) bt,fipr]vTo. Nor can [43]
5-6 be taken as an argument for the non-existence of nomarchs in certain
nomes, for (i) 01; in line 6 refers to places, not to whole nomes, and (a)
that passage implies that where there were no nomarchs there were also
no toparchs, cf. vojxapxai r] miapxai in line 6 with rmi vojxapxni ku rcot
TOTTapxni in line 5. As for the alternative supposition that the nomarchs
were for a time absent, we are forced to believe not only that all the
nomarchs could be away at once, which is very unlikely, but that their
absence was a matter of frequent occurrence, since it was necessary to
provide for the contingency, and further that, when a toparch was acting
for a nomarch under these circumstances, he could be called ' chief of the
nome.' But it is hardly credible that the toparch should have thus
usurped the title of the nomarch ; moreover, if the writer of the papyrus
had meant that the toparch was for the moment acting-nomarch, he would
have used Trapa or some such phrase. On the other hand, all these
difficulties are avoided by supposing that vojjlov is here and in [43] 3
equivalent to vofxri, a meaning which not only suits the context in both
cases, but is perfectly consistent with the duties of nomarchs, so far as
they can be gathered from the Petrie papyri. The phrase ' chief of the
nome ' would apply with much greater propriety to the strategus.
17. I have taken a-nopov here as equivalent to a-nepi^a, cf [43] 4,
and perhaps [42] 16. Elsewhere it means the 'crop': e.g. [41] 3.
It is not clear why the nomarch should receive this money, or who is the
subject of Ko/xifetrSo), which may mean simply ' receive.' If it is Trpo-
eo-TjjKO)?, cf [32] ID note. In [43] 3 it is the nomarch who distributes the
seed to the cultivators : cf App. ii (3). The first few letters of lines 17
and 18 have now disappeared.
19. aku, : see note on [39] 9.
COMMENTARY. 135
[42.] 3-[43] 2. 'When the season comes for gathering the sesame,
croton, and cnecus, the cultivators shall give notice to the nomarch and
the toparch, or where there are no nomarchs or toparchs to the oeco-
nomus ; and these officials shall summon the contractor, and he shall go
with them to the fields and assess the crop. The peasants and the other
cultivators shall have their different kinds of produce assessed before
they gather it, and shall make a double contract, sealed, with the con-
tractor, and every peasant shall enter on oath the amount of land which
he has sown with seed of each kind, and the amount of his assessment,
and shall seal the contract, which shall also be sealed by the representa-
tive of the nomarch or toparch.'
3. Cf. [24] 15, the parallel regulation for cultivators of vineyards.
4. This passage and line 16 show that cnecus, whatever it was, did
not grow wild, but was cultivated like sesame and croton. The omission
of colocynth and linseed is a difficulty which arises in several places,
cf. line 12, [40] 15, [43] 18, [44] 6, [46] 17, [49] 17, [53] 10, 15. But
the inference to be drawn is not that the regulations were inapplicable
to colocynth and linseed^ but that the regulations for them were parallel
to those for sesame, croton, and cnecus. See [43] 14 ra XoLira v -niv
wvr]v : see [24] 1 7 note.
9. apovpas, 'fields': cf. Rev. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. December, 1891,
p. 65.
II. kaoi are the fellaheen : cf. L. P. 63. 100 tchv ev ran Kco/nats Karoi-
Kovvrcov kaoiv, and P. P. 14. 4. Tt-ixacrOwiTav is probably passive, as in line
17. The method of assessment resembles that for cultivators of vineyards
[25] 1-2, rather than that for cultivators of orchards [29] 6.
136 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
13. T) is omitted by mistake after irporepov : on the uncorrected
blunders of this scribe see note on [48] 9.
15. 6177X771/ : see [27] 5 note.
17. opKov: sc^aa-iKiKov; cf. the demotic contract quoted in note on [39] 8.
ao. (Tvva-nodTaXiis : this does not imply that the nomarch was there :
see note on [27] 13.
[43.] 3. e$m opa: see [41] 13 note.
[43.] 20-25. 'The crop of sesame and croton assigned to the culti-
vators to be grown for other nomes shall be assessed by the oeconomus
and antigrapheus, who shall receive the sesame and croton from the
cultivators ' (added by the corrector).
20. bLaypa(f)evTos : i. e. in [60]-[73] ; cf. [41] 20 note. The tax on
sesame and croton grown for other nomes belonged to the contractors
of the nome to which the produce was transferred, [57] 7-13. Hence it
was not allowed to pass through the hands of the contractors in the
nome where it was grown. Cf. [60] 11, where the oeconomus, not the
contractor, receives the produce grown ev ttji a4>a>pLcriJLiv7]i.
- 25. Cf. [40] 16 note.
[43.] 3-10. ' The nomarch or official in charge of the distribution of
crops shall give out the seed to each cultivator sixty days before the
crop is gathered. If he fails to do so or to show the cultivators who
have sown the assigned number of arourae, he shall pay the contractor
the fine which has been decreed, and shall recover his loss by exacting
it from the disobedient cultivators.'
3. Cf. [41] 16 note. Sorco does not imply that it was more than
a loan : see App. ii (3) 2-4.
5. The sixty days do not apply to croton, which takes a long time to
grow, or to cnecus, colocynth and flax, the amount of which was not
fixed, cf. note on [39] 14. It is remarkable that sesame and croton are
treated throughout the papyrus as precisely parallel, although the one
had to be sown every year, and the other lasted several years.
6. TTapacrxnTai : cf [51] 8, where too the middle is (probably) found
in place of the active.
7. bia-ypa(f)ev: i.e. in [60]-[72], though the list of nomes to which
the scribe was referring before the corrections took place was different ;
see note on [38] i and [57] 6. yeypap.p.eva : see [41] 9-12.
COMMENTARY. 137
[43.] 1T-19. 'All persons throughout the country who are exempt
from taxation, or hold villages and land in gift, or receive the revenues
therefrom as income, shall measure out all the sesame and croton
assigned to them, and the other kinds of produce included in the
oil-monopoly, leaving a sufficient amount for next year's seed ; and they
shall be paid the value of it in copper coin, at the rate of 6 dr. for an
artaba of sesame, 3 dr. % obols for an artaba of croton, i dr. for an
artaba of cnecus.'
II. areXety: e.g. the Fayoum was exempt, so far as the produce
which it grew for the Memphite nome was concerned : see note on
[69] I.
iv boopeai: cf. note on [36] 15. ev crwra^et : avvTa^is means a 'con-
tribution,' especially for religious purposes ; see the Serapeum papyri,
Ros. stone 15, and Rev. R. E. I. 59. L. suggests that the difference
between villages ev bcopeai. and villages ev awra^ei was that in the latter
case only the revenues were assigned to a person (cf. the case of
Themistocles who received the revenues of five cities, Athen. i. 30), while
in the former, besides the revenues, the whole village was made over,
including the duty of administering it. Cf [44] 3, where it is stated that
no oil factories are to be set up in villages ^v baipeai. This shows that
the administration of villages ev bonpeai was not quite the same as that of
ordinary villages, from which villages ev o-wrafet ar,e not there distin-
guished ; and I prefer Lumbraso's explanation to those suggested by
M. Introd. p. xxxviii. In any case the holders of land ev avvTa^eLwere no
doubt mainly, if not wholly, the priests, cf [50] 30, while holders of land
ev batpeai were court favourites.
13. yevoixevov: there is no reason to think that the areXets were
allowed greater freedom in the choice of crops than other cultivators.
For this use of yevojxevov as ' due ' cf. [30] 21, [37] 16, [56] 19, but in all
these cases the present participle is used, and perhaps yevo\xevov here
merely means what they have grown.
16. -npos xa>^Kov: cf. note on [40] 10, and App. iii pp. 194-198.
17. In the case of sesame, since the areXeis only received 6 dr. instead
of 8 paid .to the ordinary cultivators, [39] 3, who had, [39] 18, to give
back 2 dr. as tax, their areXeta was purely nominal ; cf. note on [39] 14.
With regard to croton they were slightly better off than the ordinary
cultivators, receiving 3 dr. 2 obols instead of 3 drachmae net. On
T
138 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
the other hand, in the case of cnecus they were actually worse off,
receiving only i dr. instead of i dr. a obols. Colocynth and linseed are
as usual omitted, cf. note on [42] 4, though they must have been included
in ra Xoma ^opria. Probably the areAeis received the same amount for
these as the vnoTfkus, since there was no tax on them ; but the case of
cnecus is remarkable.
19. The apodosis is probably 'they shall pay the deficiency'; cf.
line 10. It is unlikely that there is here a reference to their keeping
back sesame and croton and so violating the monopoly, for that is
discussed in [49] 16 sqq.
[44.] 'The oeconomus and antigrapheus shall appoint ... to be
a factory and shall seal their choice by stamping it. But in villages
which are held as a gift from the Crown they shall not set up an
oil factory. They shall deposit in each factory the requisite amount
of sesame, croton, and cnecus. They shall not allow the workmen
appointed in each nome to cross over into another nome ; any workman
who crosses over shall be subject to arrest by the contractor and the
oeconomus and antigrapheus. No one shall harbour workmen from
another nome ; if any one does so knowingly or fails to send back
workmen when he has been ordered to restore them, he shall pay
a fine of 3000 dr. for each workman, and the workman .shall be subject
to arrest.'
I. A comparison of [45] 7 and 13 with [44] 4 shows that the oeco-
nomus and antigrapheus are the subject.
3. See note on [43] 11.
5. Cf. an ostracon in Prof. Sayce's collection published by Wilck.
Akt. p. 59, dated the thirty-fifth year of Euergetes 11, in which
Asclepiades, probably -npos riqi eKaiovpyiai., i. e., if the law was still the
same, the chief contractor, gives a receipt to Heracleides, probably
a yeoapyos, but possibly the oeconomus, for Kpor(i>v\os] /3, as Wilck. now
reads, the sign for artaba being omitted.
16. eTTKTTaKfvTos : Wilck. Cf. the frequent use of /SonXojuei'OD in [25] i,
[28] 10 et al. avayayr] : cf. [22] 2, note.
[45.] 1-12. ' . . . and from the surplus of the oil that is sold (altered
to 'manufactured'), the oeconomus shall divide among the workmen
for every metretes containing la choes 3 dr. (altered to 'a dr. 3 obols.')
COMMENTARY. 139
Of this sum the workmen and the men who cut the crop shall receive
a dr. (altered to ' i dr. 4 obols'), and the contractors i dr. (altered
to '5 obols'). But if the oeconomus or his representative fails to pay
the workmen their wages, or their share in the profits from the sale
of the o\\, he shall pay a fine of 3000 dr. to the Treasury, and to the
workmen their pay, and to the contractors twice the amount of the
loss which they may have incurred on account of the workmen.'
2. There is not room for rou eiriyei'Tjjixaros : probably the first scribe
wrote yevriixaTos by mistake, and €7rt was added by the corrector, for
yevqixaros is meaningless and in [55] 9 and 1^, which clearly refer back
to this passage, eTnyivrjixa is found. As the phrase in line 9, ro /xe/xept-
a-jxevov otto ttjs Trpaaecos (cf. [55] 9 to avvTerayfxevov ixepLCe(rdaL airo tov
eiTiyivriixaTos) shows, the surplus here was the profit on every metretes
of oil sold after the expenses of production had been deducted^ cf.
[41] II, and [39] 14, note, and is quite different from the eiTLyevqixa
of A and B.
3. KarepyaCofiivov : cf. [56] 19-31, a regulation which ought to have
come in here to the effect that no share of the profit was to be paid
to the workmen for the oil that was stored, on which see note on
[53] 5-
5. The construction is not very logical. The contractors are men-
tioned here without having been mentioned in line 3, and nothing is
said in lines 7-1 a of the compensation which they are to receive, if
the oeconomus does not pay them, for line 11 refers only to compensation
for loss inflicted on them through the workmen not being paid. The
reason is that here the payment of the workmen is the subject and
the payment of the contractors incidental. The salary of the latter
is discussed in [55].
It is interesting to note that in this, one of the earliest examples
of profit-sharing, the workmen received more than the ' entrepreneurs.'
The author of this law, whether Soter or Philadelphus, certainly favoured
the fellaheen at the expense of the richer classes or the foreign settlers,
who in most cases farmed the taxes.
KOTrets : a new sense of this word ; cf. Herodotus' description of the
manufacture of cici, ii. 94 tovtov tTreav avWe^uvTM, 01 jxev Ko^avres
a-ni-nowi, o\ 8e koX 4)pv^avT€s cnriyj/ova-L. The Revenue Papyrus gives no
details about roasting the seeds.
T 2
I40 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
8. Karepyov: wages for piece work, cf. [46] 18-20, while jxiaOoi is
a general term, ' pay.' Cf. line 1 1 where fiiadov includes both Karepyov
and the share of the profits ; [55] 14-15, where it differs from Karepyov
as 'salary' from 'wages'; [46] 2, note; and LXX Exod. 30. 16, and
^^. ai rb Karepyov rrjs a-Krjvfjs. From the way in which the Karepyov
is mentioned here, we should expect that it had been fixed in the
lost top of [45] ; but see [46] 18, note.
[45.] X3-18. 'If the oeconomus and antigrapheus fail to set up oil
factories in accordance with these regulations, or to deposit a sufficient
quantity of produce, thus inflicting a loss on the contractors, both
the oeconomus jnd antigrapheus shall be fined the amount of the
deficit which results, and shall pay the contractors twice the amount
of the loss incurred.'
14. TTapaOwvrai : cf. [44] 5.
16. r-qv eyheiav: sc. eiy ro ^atriKiKov, cf. [40] 7, and [41] 9.
[45.] i9-[46] 20. 'The oeconomus and antigrapheus shall provide
tools for each factory, .... when the oeconomus visits the factory in
order to pay the wages (?), he shall not interfere with the work in
any way to the damage of the contractors. If he fails to provide tools,
or damages the interests of the contractors in any way, he shall be
judged before the dioecetes, and if he is found guilty, he shall pay (to
the Treasury) a fine of two talents of silver, and (to the contractors)
twice the amount of the damage which he has caused. The contractors
and the clerk appointed by the oeconomus and antigrapheus shall have
joint authority over all the workmen in the nome, and over the factories
and the plant, and they shall seal up the tools during the time when
there is no work. They shall compel the workmen to work every
day, and shall supervise them in person, and they shall every day
make into oil not less than i^ artabae of sesame (altered to ' i artaba')
in each mortar, and 4 artabae of croton, and i of cnecus, and they
shall pay the workmen as wages for making 4 artabae of sesame,
into oil . . ., for . . artabae of croton 4 drachmae, and for . . artabae of
cnecus 8 drachmae.'
[45.] 19. The fragment containing ]Kovop.{ and ]a(T{ has disappeared.
Cf. [46] 4 and 11, xopijyjt and KaraaKevrjs.
[46.] 3. If Karmv is right and goes with Karepyov, it is difficult to
COMMENTARY. 141
take Kanpyov in its ordinary sense, cf. [45] 8 note. M. suggests that
it here means the ' work,' i. e. if the oeconomus visited the factory while
the work was proceeding, he was not to interfere, and compares P. P.
7. 8 eypmffa croi o Set boOrjvai eis iKaarov apyov Kai to Karepyov, which
he thinks means ' working time ' as opposed to ' time when there is
no work,' cf. [46] la. But the ordinary meaning, 'wages' is equally
possible there, and therefore I hesitate to depart here from the ascertained
meaning of Karepyov.
6. The mention of silver here and in [47] 8 does not imply that other
fines were Trpos xaXicov.
10. TJoTTodi is an equally possible reading.
11. iiapacr(ppayiCe(Tdcti(rav: see note on [26] 7.
14. Karepya^ea-daicrav: the subject may be the workmen, cf. note on
[32] 10; but KaTepyaCf and meets the case of merchants who
were bringing oil to Alexandria, as they were entitled to do, and who, if
they brought it by sea direct would be exempt, but, if they wished to
take it by land, might, according to the foregoing regulations, either be
forbidden or be forced to pay the duty. The biopOcaixa therefore decrees
that these persons shall be arekus, i. e. like those who brought the oil
direct to Alexandria. If irapaKoiiLCuxTL be taken as ' transport by sea,' we
have to admit that for some reason those who took oil to Alexandria
via Pelusium were favoured beyond those who brought it direct, and that
the biopdufia is misplaced, for this column has to do with oil introduced
into the X'^P°- The other explanation, which gives a much better
meaning, is based on the assumption that at Alexandria there was no
duty upon oil imported direct from Syria or elsewhere for the con-
sumption of the capital. This is not stated in [50], but neither is the
reverse stated ; and, if the oil imported to Alexandria via Pelusium,
whether by land or sea, was duty-free, the presumption is in favour of oil
imported direct being also exempt. Moreover the persons appointed to
watch over the importation of Syrian oil at Alexandria and Pelusium
were avnypacpas, not Xoyevrai, [54] 16.
27. The koyevTris was the representative of the contractors see
[13] I.
28. ev rcot vop.m : i. e. in 18-19 : cf. note on [21] 10. The merchants
had to carry the voucher, although they had not paid the duty.
COMMENTARY. 151
[53.] 4-17. 'The contractors shall receive the sesame and croton, of
which a store (?) has been ordered for each nome, within three days from
the day on which they take over the contract, paying for it at the rate
of . . . for sesame, ... for a metretes of seSame oil, for croton ... for cici
. . . (altered to ' 17 dr.') . . . But if, when they give up the contract, they
leave behind them more oil (than they were ordered to store ?) they shall
receive from the oeconomus as the value of the sesame oil 31 dr. \\ obols
(altered to ' a8 dr. 3 obols ') for a metretes, of cici 21 dr. % obols (altered
to ' 30 dr.') for a metretes, of cnecus oil 18 dr. 4 obols (altered to ' 17 dr.
I obol ') for a metretes, and as the value of the sesame 8 drachmae for
an artaba, of the croton 4 dr., and of the cnecus i dr. 3 obols (altered to
' I dr. 2 obols ').
4. The lacunae are too great for any certainty, but I conjecture that
this section refers to the produce and oil of which a store had to be kept
by the predecessors of the contractors, and was bought by the incoming
contractors within three days of their entering on the wv^, 7-11 being
the prices which the contractors paid for it, 12-17 the prices they
received on giving up the contract for any surplus above the amount
which they had been ordered to store for their successors. The price
which they received for what they were ordered to store is partly lost in
the lacuna, partly given by 9-1 1. For the construction of 4-8 -napa-
\r\^ovra\. . . . cnjerajuoi' tov crqcraixov tov fxe V" . , cf. 18— 21 oiroy 6 av ekaiov
VT!OKr)pv^ti>\j.€v . . , \ri\jfOfie9a . . . tov ^t,ev eXaiov tov /iie H . .
■jTapaKri^j/ovTai : cf. [9] I.
5. aiTOTLdecrdai : cf. [56] ai, where tov aTtoTi6ejj.ivov sc. eAaiow is, I think,
certain. There is no place where the regulations about the oil stored
can come except here, and this section cannot refer to the ordinary
sesame and croton required from each nome, because (i) that has been
discussed in [39] ; (2) it is impossible that it should have been received
within three days of any fixed time, cf. [42] 3 ; (3) the contractors are
to receive not only sesame and croton but sesame oil and cici, line 8.
Nor can this section refer to oil required for Alexandria or the king,
for that is mentioned in the following sections, while the sesame and
croton to be grown for other nomes, [41] 30, would be obviously
irrelevant here.
9. Possibly r?)? ev enaa-Ton, voixcai KaOLcrTajXivqs Tifji-qi ; cf. [51] 1 9.
II. The reference is to [39]. As the biaypanixa is fixed for, not zu,
152 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
the twenty-seventh year, probably the biaypaixfiaTa were revised every
year : cf. note on [38] i.
Since the corrector says that the contractors are to receive for the
produce the prices mentioned in [39], and his corrections in the next
sections are all to the disadvantage of the contractors, probably the
original draft ordained that the contractors should receive more.
1 6. The corrected prices here are the same as the prices in [39] ;
therefore on the produce the contractors only recovered what they had
themselves paid: cf. lo-ii. I suspect that this is approximately the
case with the oils also, and that the corrected prices in 14-15 nearly
represent the cost price of the oils, or a little more ; see note on 20. In
any case it is practically certain that the contractors did not receive less
for this oil than what the production of it had cost them. The profit on
the inferior oils was much greater than on the superior, since there was
no difference in the (corrected) retail price of any of the oils, [40] 9-16.
Cf. [53] 23 for colocynth which is omitted here.
[53.] 17-26. 'The oil which we hereinafter proclaim our intention of
taking from each nome for disposal at Alexandria, we will take from the
contractors in the nome, paying for it at the rate of 31 dr. 4} obols for
a metretes of sesame oil containing 12 choes without jars, and 21 dr. 2
obols for cici, 18 dr. 4 obols for cnecus oil, and T2 dr. for colocynth oil.
(Altered to ' 1 8 dr. 2 obols for a metretes of cici.') This price shall be
credited to the contractors in the instalments due from them, but the
price of the produce, the wages of manufacture, and the miscellaneous
expenses shall first be paid by the oeconomus.'
18. VT!OK-r]pv^M)xev : i. e. in the list of nomes. The original list, as this
passage shows, contained not only the amounts of sesame oil and cici
required from each nome for Alexandria but the amounts of cnecus and
colocynth oil ; see notes on [57] 6, [58] 1, and [41] 20. The corrector,
however, substituting only one oil, cici, for the four, intended viroK-npv-
^Mfxiv to refer to [60]-[72], and in fact the produce ets ras ev Ake^avhpfiai.
biaOfo-fLs is in those columns always croton, except in two instances,
[60] 24 and [62] 5, of sesame. Hence his omission of the price of
sesame oil, about which there is no doubt, is a mistake, to which how-
ever little importance is to be attached.
Who is meant by the first person in VT!OKripv^wp,ev and kri^op.e6a}
Cf [53] 27 ext»ixiv ; [54] i [■KpoKy]pv^'\oiJ.ev ; [57] 3 = [59] 2 ircoXov/xez/ ;
COMMENTARY. 153
[58] 6 = [60] 13 inakoviiiv, and frequent instances in [57]-[72] ; together
with L. P. [1] I, where natXovfxev is probable; or, to put the question in
another form, who is the author of the Revenue Laws ? Both the general
probabilities of the case and these instances, which all imply that the
person speaking lays down rules for the whole country, require as the
answer — the king. The only other person who could possibly be meant
is the dioecetes at Alexandria, or the chief financial minister, whoever he
was. Against the king being the author may be urged the fact that in
many places o ^aaikevs is spoken of in the third person, while the
dioecetes at Alexandria is not mentioned. But this is no real objection,
for in [36] 13 tov ^aaiKews, not ejxov, occurs in a upoypaiiixa undoubtedly
issued by the king himself, and the difficulty of supposing that under an
autocratic government the law of the country should be issued in any
other name than that of the king is overwhelming. With regard to
L. P. 62, the official title of which is uncertain, see note on [1] 6 of that
papyrus. The general similarity between it and the Revenue Papyrus is
so close that, even apart from my conjecture Tuakovixiv and the evident
parallelism between L. P. [1] 1-3 and [57] 0^-^, cf notes ad loc, it is not
easy to separate the rank of the author in the two documents. The
ingenious argument by which Lumb. Rec. p. 34a tries to show that L. P.
62 was written by a vTiobLOLKiqT-qs cuts both ways, and is not in the least
inconsistent with that papyrus, like the Revenue Papyrus, having been
issued in the king's name.
19. biaOeaets : see note on [48] 4.
20. ev rwi vopLcoL : the Crown paid the cost of the carriage to Alex-
andria, and also supplied the jars, cf. [55] 4 ; on the other hand, the
oeconomus paid for the produce, the wages of manufacture, and the
miscellaneous expenses, presumably entering what he paid in the con-
tractors' accounts against the sums credited to them. There is no
question therefore that all these expenses were more than covered by
the sums written by the first hand in 20-22, but the profit on the sale
of a metretes was even greater than the difference between these prices
and the selling price, cf note on line 16 and the corrected price of cici
here, 18 dr. 2 obols, which covered the expenses in lines 24-25.
There is no mention here of the share of the surplus which, according
to the corrected reading in [45] 3, was to be paid to the workmen and
contractors on the oil that was manufactured. Cf [45] 9 to ixeixepia-jxevov
X.
154 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
O.T70 T-qs TTpaa-ems, which is left uncorrected, though iruikovixevov in [45] 3
was altered. It is possible that oil eis ras ev Ak.e^avbpei.ai btaOecreis was
not included in the oil ' sold,' but in any case according to the correction
the share ought to have been distributed from the profits of the oil
manufactured for Alexandria.
23. Cf. [34] 6, a similar regulation for wine required eis ro ^aa-iXiKov.
ava(j)opa: see note on [16] 10, [34] 8, and [56] 15.
35. The oeconomus here pays for the produce, which was usually
paid for by the contractors ([39] 13), and for the avrjkmna, which also
under ordinary circumstances was paid for by them, cf. [54] 4.
Was his payment of the Karepyov also exceptional ? The answer to the
question depends on the meaning of [46] 18, which owing to the lacuna
is uncertain. [55] 15 however is an argument in favour of supposing
that the Karepyov was paid by the government, not the contractors, for it
is coupled there with ixia-doi. But the conditions of making oil at
Alexandria may have been different from those in the country, and
owing to the lacuna in [55] 3 it is not clear whether the wages were
included in the 8taA.oyto-/xos. If the contractors had nothing to do with
paying the Karepyov, it must have been paid out of the profits, and
therefore the sum paid by the contractors to the government did not
represent the net profits of the government, since the government would
have to subtract the Karepyov. On the whole, however, it seems more
probable that the contractors paid the eXaiovpyoi as well as the yewpyoi.
than that the account of the Karepyov was kept separate. The question
does not affect the general position of the contractors to the government,
cf. note on [39] 13, for if they did not pay the Karepyov, they would bid
a correspondingly higher sum for the covq.
[53.] 27-[54] 14. 'The amount of sesame oil or cici which we
require in Alexandria, we will proclaim at the time of the sale, and we
will pay for it (?) at the rate of 48 dr. a metretes. (Bracketed by the
corrector) . . . they shall not be allowed to introduce the oil into
Alexandria on any pretext (added by the corrector " if they are dis-
covered doing so they shall be deprived of the oil "). If they fail to
render account of it, or if they introduce the oil into Alexandria without
declaring all of it (" or are discovered introducing oil into the loads,"
bracketed by the corrector), they shall both be deprived of the oil and in
addition each of those who have contracted for the village, shall pay
COMMENTARY. 155
a fine to the Treasury of 3 talents. (Altered by the corrector to ' they
shall both be fined the value of the oil which they have introduced into
Alexandria vi^ithout declaring it . . .' The corrector in the next sentence
omits ' to the Treasury,' and adds a new section over one which he has
effaced, ' The fine shall belong to the Treasury and shall be put down to
the oil-contractors in the country.')
[53.] 27. This section is one of the most obscure in the whole
papyrus. In the first place there is the question whether [53] 37-[54] %
forms a complete section or whether it is connected with what follows.
The fact that it is bracketed and no new regulation added perhaps
shows that [54] 2-14 could stand alone, but as this section is clearly
concerned with oil required in Alexandria, it was probably connected by
the original scribe with [53] 27-[54] 3. On the other hand it is quite
possible that the corrector intended by bracketing [53] 27-[54] 3 to
connect [54] 3-14 with [53] 17-26. Next, what was this oil required in
Alexandria ? It cannot be oil for sale there, for that subject has been
disposed of in the preceding section, 17-26, but if I am right in supposing
that the king is the subject of exa/xey (see note on [53] 18), this oil was
perhaps required for the consumption of the court ; cf. [34] 6, which
however only mentions wine taken eis to ^acnXiKov and does not specify
Alexandria. It is possible that the oil referred to here was to be
exported, but as Egypt produced hardly enough oil for its own use, that
is not likely. Another difficulty is the high price, 48 dr., apparently
paid by the king for this oil. If he received oil ets ras ev AXe^avhpeiat,
biadeaets at a reduced rate, we should expect him to pay still less for oil
which he required himself A possible explanation is that as the profit
on the sale of each metretes ultimately came back to the government,
the king recovered the difference between the cost price which he might
have paid, and the price which he did pay, because the contractors who
knew beforehand the amount which the king would take (see [54] 2),
made for the contract a bid greater by the sum which they would
receive for this oil taken by the king ; cf. note on [53] 25.
3. The bracket after jut; is very irregularly formed and apparently
turned the wrong way.
4. If riixioXLV is right, cf. the not infrequent omission of the in
apyvpiov at this period, e.g. Wilck. Ostr 339, see App. iii. p. 200.
13. The farming of the taxes, which were sold collectively to a
X 3
156 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
company for a whole nome, was sub-divided by the tax-farmers among
themselves, sometimes each contracting to collect the taxes of a par-
ticular district, e. g. P. P. xlvi, where Philip is stated to have bought the
right of collecting the airoiJ.ot.pa rmv irepi ^L\a8ek(f>eiav Kai BovjSacrTov tottoov,
sometimes, as the plural jue/^io-^cojueroi here shows, several of them com-
bining to collect the revenues of a particular place. In this case the
ekaiKr] (avrj of the nome was sub-divided into the smaller (ovai of the
villages, and those who had contracted to make oil at certain villages
were apparently responsible for sending this oil required for Alexandria.
Whether they had a particular interest in introducing oil into Alexandria
without declaring it is not clear, and the corrections are very difficult.
From the analogy of the other places in which KaraxtoptCf'^' is used, we
should expect the meaning of line 14 to be that the fine was put down
to the credit of the oil contractors, though the emphatic manner in which
it is stated that the fine was to belong to the Treasury makes the opposite
meaning ' put down against ' quite possible. But as the insertion of ev
Tr]i xtepat implies a contrast with the contractors at Alexandria, i.e.
although the fine was exacted at Alexandria, it affected only the
contractors of the nome to which ot /je/xto-^oj/xevot rrjv Kmia]v belonged,
and as the contractors in Alexandria had obviously done nothing to
incur a penalty, there is more point in the contrast if KaTaxopiC^o-eu) has
its usual meaning. Then the explanation of the fine being credited to
the contractors of the nome from which the oil was brought to Alex-
andria, must be that their interests had been somehow damaged by the
action of ot jxifuadoofxivoi in not declaring all the oil. Perhaps ot /ne/xt-
adaiixfvoi had sold some of it secretly without entering it in the accounts,
see line 8 Scocrtz; tov \oyov,
[54.] 15-19- 'The contractors shall appoint also clerks to act as
their agents at Alexandria and Pelusium for the oil imported from Syria
to Pelusium and Alexandria, and these clerks shall seal the repositories
and follow up the disposal of the oil'
16. avTiypa^iis : see note on [3] 2, and cf. L. P. 62 [8] 15.
17. €K 2vpias: see note on [52] 18. As the oil mentioned in this
section is to be consumed at the port to which it is brought (cf. [52] 2,6
for oil brought to Pelusium on its way to Alexandria), and there was no
duty at Alexandria on the oil mentioned here, [52] 26 note, probably
there was no duty on it at Pelusium also.
COMMENTARY. 157
18. aTToSoxta : cf. [31] 19, and see note on [50] 6. On the abrupt
change of subject see note on [32] 10.
[54.] 2o-[55] 16. 'The clerk of the oil-contract appointed by the
oeconomus shall hold a balancing of accounts every month with the
chief contractor in the presence of the antigrapheus, and he shall write
down in his books both the amount of the different kinds of produce
which he has received, with the amount of oil which he has manufactured
and sold (' at the price written in the legal tariff ' added by the corrector),
except the oil which is set apart, and the price of the produce written in
the legal tariff, together with the price of the jars and miscellaneous
expenses, which shall be calculated at the rate of i dr. for an artaba of
sesame, • obols for croton, 3 obols for cnecus, ... for colocynth, ... for
linseed, for - . metretae of sesame oil . . ., for 5 metretae of cici i dr.
I obol, for 9 metretae of cnecus oil . . ., for 7 metretae of lamp oil i dr.,
for 12 metretae of colocynth oil i dr. i obol, and that share of the
surplus of which the division between the workmen and the contractors
has been ordered, and the expenses, whatever they may be, of transport
of the produce. The contractors shall receive their pay from their share
of the surplus.' (' But in Alexandria the wages for the manufacture of the
sesame oil, the brokerage, and the pay of the contractors shall be given
in accordance with the proclamation which shall be made at the time of
the sale.' Added by the corrector.)
[54.] 20. Cf. [46] 8, [47] 10, &c., where an antigrapheus appointed
by both the oeconomus and antigrapheus acts in conjunction with the
contractors. But this person is appointed only by the oeconomus and
is called an antigrapheus T-qs (ovr]s, so that he is probably different.
Cf. [3] 2 note.
21. StaAoyifeo-^o) : cf. [16]-[19] and [34] 9-31. There is nothing
said in this biaXoyiaixos of the final balancing of accounts, but see note on
[53] 25.
23. €KaaTov yevovs : see note on [41] 11. The re after (popna is
contrasted with the re after TL/x-qv. [54] 23-[55] 2 a^atperot), are the
amounts for which the contractors were responsible, [55] 3-12, the
sums which they were allowed to deduct. The difference between the
two was due to the Treasury.
[55.] I. biaypaixfjiaTi : i. e. [40]. If x<^/«s is right, cf. [61] i ^copis rrjs
T58 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
a^Kopia-fxevris. to a(paipeTov perhaps refers to to airoTidefj,€vov, [53] 5, or to
the oil required in Alexandria, [53] 27. It cannot refer to the oil
required eis ras tv A\e^avbpfiab hLadeaecs, for that was included in the
avacfiopai, [53] 23.
2. Tifiriv : see [39]. Whether a reference to the Karepyov is lost in
the lacuna in the next line is doubtful, [53] 35 note.
4. Kfpa\xiov: cf. [53] 21. Apparently the contractors received an
allowance in the account for pottery and the miscellaneous expenses.
5. The proportion of two to one is that nearly always found between
the prices of sesame and croton, cf. note on [39] 3, and it is probable
that the allowance for the ai^rjAto/xara of croton was 3 obols.
6. The insertion of this line is very doubtful. If colocynth and
linseed were mentioned the avr]Xuip.aTa must have been excessively small,
see [39] ^-j.
8. The abbreviation which elsewhere means artaba, see note on [39]
II, is here found with the oils: if the artaba and metretes had the same
capacity (Rev. R. E. ii. 159), it is here perhaps equivalent to metretes.
But which artaba was equivalent in capacity to which metretes ? The
papyrus elsewhere uses the ordinary sign for fxerpTjrjjj, p.^, and there is
no parallel in any papyrus for the sign meaning artaba as the equivalent
of metretes. If however the abbreviation here really means artaba, it
would seem to be a mistake.
ID. (TvvTiTaypivov: i.e. in [45] 1-6. The i-niyivr]p.a here is the differ-
ence between the cost and the selling price of oil so far as the contractors
were concerned. Cf notes on [41] 1 1 and [45] 2.
13. }xi(t6oi : see [45] 2 note.
i^. Karepyov. see note on [45] 8. ro ■npoTTMXrjTLKov. in the case of
Alexandria there were middlemen between the tax-farmers and retail
traders. In the rest of the country the oil was sold by auction direct to
the retailers, [48] 13 note.
[55.] i7-[56] 13. 'Search. If the contractors or their subordinates
wish to make a search, on the ground that some persons have concealed
oil or oil-presses, they shall hold a search in the presence of the agent of
^ the oeconomus and antigrapheus (altered to ' or the agent of the anti-
grapheus '). If the agent of the oeconomus or antigrapheus when sum-
moned fails to accompany the contractors, or to remain present until the
search is made, he shall pay the contractors twice the amount of the oil
COMMENTARY. 159
supposed to be concealed, at their assessment of it, and the contractors
shall be allowed to make the search within . . days ... If the contractor
fails to find what he declared himself to be in search of, he may be
compelled by the person whose property is searched to take an oath,
and swear that his search was made for absolutely no other than its
declared purpose, which strictly concerned the oil contract. If he fails
to take the oath on the day on which he is required to take it or on the
one following, he shall pay the person who requires him to take it twice
the value of the oil supposed to be concealed, as it was estimated before
the search took place.'
[55.] 17. vitrjpeTai : see note on [13] a.
30. K.api!i,fiov : though the general sense of the passage is clear, we
have been unable to make any satisfactory suggestion for this word.
The second letter may be A, in which case kXotihiov is the only word
possible, and that can hardly be used in a passive sense. In line 19 the
a of eXjatoi' may possibly be e, but it is more like a. Wilck. suggests
e\aLovpfj.ov (yt and ix are practically indistinguishable in this hand), i. e.
a mistake for eXaiovpyijiov, and thinks it is contrasted with K.ap-i;ip.ov, but
the correction of the singular to the plural seems to me in favour of
eXaiOVpyiov.
22. oiKov{oy.)ov. As the corrector has corrected xat in line ai to ry,
this person is yet another antigrapheus ; see [3] 2 note.
33. aTTOTiveruxrav ought to have been altered to the singular as only
one person is meant, even if the original reading kul in line 21 had not
been a mere blunder.
25. he ought probably to have been erased when jutj was altered to
Kot, cf. note on [48] 9.
[56.] 5. The letters above rj fir; are more like ovpav, which may be
a mistake for copav.
8. 7] p.y]v : cf. Wilck. Akt. xi. 2. The temples had an official whose
duty it was to superintend the taking of oaths : see Rev. Chrest. Dim.
p. 45. The object of forcing the searcher to take this oath must, as
M. suggests, have been to clear the character of the person whose house
was searched.
[56.] 14-18. ' The contractors shall appoint sureties for a sum greater
i6o REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
by one-twentieth than that which they have contracted to pay, and shall
pay up the taxes collected every day to the bank, while the monthly
instalment shall be paid up before the middle of the month following.'
14. Cf. [34] 2.
15. Aoyeujua, Xoyivrrjs, and \oyeveLv are the regular words for collecting
a tax, cf. [10] I, [12] i3(?), [16] 11, [52] 20, 27. Hence the koytvixara
here have nothing to do with the ordinary payments for oil sold by the
contractors, i. e. the ava(f>opa with which Xoyevixara are contrasted. More-
over neither hiopduxxovrai nor KaO r]iiepav is consistent with the supposition
that ordinary payments are meant, cf. [48] 4-13. The only Xoyev-
jxara mentioned in C are the duties on foreign oil in [52], and these
I think are meant here, but both hiopdo^aovTai and Kad rjixepav as applied
even to them are extremely difficult. The last part of the regulation is
clear; an instalment [ava(popa) amounting to one-twelfth part of the
year's revenue which the contractors had agreed to pay the government
was expected from them every month, and if the actual instalment did
not reach the required amount, the contractors had to make up the
deficiency {hiopQovadai), either themselves or through their sureties, before
the middle of the next month. If Kad r]p.epav is opposed to irpo Trjs
bLxop-rivMs there is no alternative but to suppose that a certain proportion
of the \oyevij.aTa was expected every day and the contractors had to pay
it, whether the XoyiVfiara received each day reached the required amount
or not, unless indeed we admit that biopdcocrovTai does not mean, when
applied to Koyevixara, what it means when applied to ava<^opav, which is
very unlikely. But it is hardly conceivable that the contractors should
be required every day to make up any deficiency in the Xoyeviiara,
whether these are the duties on foreign oil or no ; and therefore I think
that KaO rjixepav is to be closely connected with koyevjiara, ra being
omitted by a very natural error, and is opposed to r-qv eTn^aWovaav tu>i
ix-qvi. The meaning then is that the contractors or their sureties had to
make up the deficiency first on the Aoyeujuara received every day, and
secondly on the monthly instalment, in both cases before the middle of
the next month. This gives a satisfactory sense, but is open to the
objection that if ev tool exonevooi irpo ttjs Six.o/^'ji'iaJ applies to both
halves of the section we should expect re . . . km, not p-ev . . . 6e, and that
as Kad -qfiepav stands in the Greek, it is unquestionably opposed to fv run
exop^evMi, not to rrjv (.nifiakKova-av tot, probably km, or else ko was written twice over by
mistake. KUTepyaaaixevoL without km [57] 19 is correct. (8) In [59] 23
a(p is omitted, cf. [57] 30. Minor differences are [57] 8 rwft = [59] 9 Tav :
[57] 10 eAAeiTTOzra = [59] 11 evXfnrovTa: [57] 17 A[T)i/foj;]rat = [59]
Kr)fxylfovTM, cf. [57] 21 = [59] 24, and [58] 5 = [60] 11, for the same
difference of spelling: [57] 18 koXokvvtivov = [59] 31 koXokwOivov. The
changes of reading introduced by the writer of [59] are thus for the
most part mere variations, in no case improvements, except perhaps (6),
and it may be argued that [59]-[60] were directly copied from [57]-[58]
by a rather careless scribe. But the number of differences in [59]-[60]
especially those which are mere variations, neither better nor worse
than [57]-[58], makes me incline to the belief that they are independent
copies of a common archetype which the scribes may have had before
them, or which may have been dictated to them simultaneously.
The meaning of this difficult column depends on the sense of twv
COMMENTARY. 165
TvpoKripyxdeia-eov [57] 8 and -upoKripvxdevTos [57] 13. The reference is,
I contend, not to the following list of nomes, [60]-[72], but to a previous
list, with which [60]-[72], referred to by aTroSei^co/xev, are contrasted.
Since the original draft of the law concerning the oil monopoly con-
tained a direct reference to a list of nomes, different from the list
which we have, [53] 18 note, and [60]-[72] were not part of the original
document, [38] i note, the list referred to by ■npoKrjpvxOfia-cov is prob-
ably that referred to by vnoKr)pv^ciip.iv in [53]. Assuming the correctness
of this identification, in what way did the original list, which no doubt
contained the law for the twenty-sixth and possibly earlier years, differ
from the list in [60]-[72] which represented the law for the twenty-
seventh year? In the first place the number of arourae to be sown
with sesame and croton in the nomes was different in the two lists,
for the section beginning ocras 8 av apovpas ekaa-a-ovs, [57] 7, is clearly
opposed to the preceding one which in that case may have begun
oaas 8 av irXeiovs, and the two lines which are left confirm this view.
The revised list therefore assigned in some cases more, in others fewer
arourae to the nomes, and where the revised amount was smaller the
deficiency was made up from other nomes, a contingency which, as
has been shown, see note on [41] 2,0, was not contemplated in the
original draft of [39]-[56], for under the old regulations each nome
grew enough for its own consumption. The difference however between
the two lists is not limited to sesame and croton. The original list
contained also the amounts of cnecus oil, colocynth oil, and perhaps
lamp oil required for Alexandria, [53] 22. In the revised list, in
accordance with the correction of [53] ao, only croton is required for
Alexandria, except in the two cases where sesame is required, [60] 24
and [62] 5, and there is no mention of the other oils, though see [58] i
note.
6. TeXos: cf. [39] 13-15. By (la-LovTa yjiovov the two years mentioned
in line 4 are meant. It is possible that the alterations in the law were
made between the time of the sale and the collection of the tax, cf.
TTpoKTfpvxdeiacov in line 9 with [55] 16 and probably [54] i, and that
although the contractors for the different nomes had bought the tax
under the old regulations, in which the numbers of arourae to be sown
were different, the government nevertheless allowed them to gain where
the change in the law was in their favour, just as it secured them against
i66 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
loss when the change injured them, see 8-10. But the phrase rois tov
eia-wvTa xpovov TipiaixevoLs rather implies that the contract had not yet
been bought, and so I think does TrcoAou/^er in [57] 3 and [58] 6. Hence
it is more probable that the alterations were made prior to the sale
of the contract and represent the terms under which it was to be
bought.
It is impossible of course to fix in which nomes the amounts of
sesame and croton to be grown for the nome itself were increased.
Many nomes in [60]-[72J] have to grow croton (and two have to grow
sesame) for Alexandria, but as no tax was paid on this in the nome
where the produce was grown, see 13-15, this increase did not affect
the contractors who had bought the tax. The nomes meant in 6-7
are those in which the number of arourae was increased without the
surplus thus produced being taken away, and this section decides what
was to be done with the increase of the tax on sesame and croton.
What was to be done with the oil produced from this increased
amount of sesame and croton is perhaps laid down in 15-23, but see
note on line 16.
8. ekaa-aovi: e.g. the Heliopolite nome, [64] 1-18, which only grew
500 arourae of sesame and therefore had to be supplemented by 2000
artabae from other nomes, while it grew no croton at all : cf [63] 1 7,
[64] 22, &c.
II. v-nap^ii : cf [61] 11, [62] I, &c. There are however two apparent
exceptions to this rule [69] 5-7 and [73] 15-18.
13. e^ ov: e. g. the Tanite nome [66] 18, the Mendesian [62] 19, &c.
16. The construction and meaning of this section have given us
more trouble than any passage in the papyrus, nor have we been
successful in finding a satisfactory solution. The general outline of
lines 16-22 is certain in so far that they consist of two parallel sections,
neither of which is written out in full, but the great difficulty is to
decide how far the parallelism is to be carried. Assuming there are
no mistakes in [57] 16-22 and putting aside for the moment the
variations in [59] 18-25, the construction seems to be oaov 5 av fxr]
bct)fj,ev ety to eA.A.etTroz' a-qaaixov km eXatov {koXokvvtlvov eKaiov km to aTto
TOV Kivov a-irepixaTos, KaTepyaa-a\x^voi 8ta Ttoy oiKovoixcav ixfrpriaopLev), a(j> ov
TO fiTiyevTjixa to lctov krj-^ovTai ocrov airo tov (Tr](Tap.ivov eXatoi) Kai ano tov
arjaaixov {iXafi^avov oij.ev. The meaning then will be that colocynth
oil and linseed oil, when not required to fill up deficiencies in sesame
oil and cici in the other nomes (cf. line 10 eXXeiirovTa), are to be manu-
factured by the oeconomi, and the tax-farmers are to receive an
eTnyevrip.a equal to that which they received from sesame oil and sesame
or cici and croton. It might be thought that this explains the absence
of colocynth and linseed in [44]-[47] which are concerned with the
manufacture of oil. But there is no reference in C either to the
substitution of colocynth and linseed oil for sesame oil and cici or
to the adulteration of sesame oil and cici with colocynth and linseed
oil, which M. suggested was the meaning of this passage. The oils
are invariably kept distinct, cf. [40] 10, [53] 14, 21, moreover in line
10 it has been already stated that the deficiency in sesame and croton
would be made up by sesame and croton from other nomes. There
is also the objection, why should the €-niyivr)p.a on the colocynth oil
not given eis to eXXeiirov a-qcraixov be different from the eTnyevrjfjia on
the colocynth oil not given eis to (eXXeiirov) klki ? This eiriyevqixa is
itself one of the most obscure points in the whole section. The only
(■niyevrjp.a mentioned in C is the difference between the cost and selling
price of oil, a part of which was paid to the contractors, cf. [45] a and
[55] 14. This suits airo tov a-qa-ap-ivov eXaiov, but is no explanation
of the e-niyevqixa airo tov arjaap-ov in [57] 18^ for which phrase C offers
no parallel. Other alternatives are either to take e-jnyfvrnxa as the
surplus on the whole account of the tax-farmers, which neither suits
TO icTov nor yields a satisfactory meaning, or to consider it equivalent
to TiXiiov in [53] 13, in which case the eTnyevrjixa on the sesame oil
as well as the eirtyeinj/xa on the sesame must refer to the prices in
i68 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
that passage. But it is very difficult to see how the prices there
could be called an emyivrfjxa since they are much less than the selling
price, [53] 16 note.
If the explanation suggested is very unsatisfactory, it is less so than
several other explanations which may seem possible, (i) If oa-ou in
[57] 15 refers not to colocynth and linseed oil but to sesame oil, the
construction becomes still more complicated and the old difficulty of
colocynth oil and linseed being used to supplement cici still remains,
(a) If o(Tov — e/c TOD \i,vov (nrepjuaro? be taken as one sentence, i. e. what
we do not give ets to eXXeiirov ariaafiov but what we do give ets to
KiKi, a(j) ov — OTTO Tov crr)(TatJ.ov in 16—18 is left unaccounted for.
(3) We may suppose that km has been omitted between kikl
and ro koXokvvtwov, in which case [59] 21 is nearer to the correct
reading than [57] 18, and the section will refer to the sesame
and croton which is in excess of the previously decreed amount,
but is not required for other nomes. Then in line 18 we ought to
supply ocrov 8 av /x?j btoixev kiki tj to koXokvvtlvov ttj to ano tov Xivov
cmepixaTos eis to kiki k.t.K, But the amount of colocynth and linseed
to be grown was not fixed, cf. [39] 14, note, and therefore it could
riot be in excess tmv TTpoKrjpvxdeia-aiv, and why is nothing said of the
finyevi^ixa on colocynth and linseed or the oils produced from them?
(4) If in line 18 we only supply kiki, we avoid the last difficulties,
but why should the deficiency in colocynth and linseed oil be supplied
by cici and not by colocynth and linseed oil ?
The omission of cnecus oil here, cf. [58] a note, is in any case re-
markable. If the explanation of the passage which I have suggested
is near the truth, and we have here a regulation concerning the manu-
facture of colocynth and linseed oil, the reason may be that the
regulations for the manufacture of cnecus have already been given and
that a deficiency in its supply was not likely to occur. But it is more
likely the omission is a mere accident, cf notes on [41] 11, [42] 4.
19. TO a-no TOV \ivov a-Repixaros : cf note on [39] 7. In [39]-[56]
it is called to e-neXXvxviov.
[58.] 1-4= [60] 3-9-
I. Two facts are clear concerning the sesame and croton mentioned
in this paragraph, (i) that they are taken away (e^) from each nome,
and (2) that no tax is to be levied on them by 01 -npiap-ivoi rrjv iXaiK-qv
COMMENTARY. 169
ef . . . . ; either of these facts is sufficient to prove that the sesame
and croton mentioned here cannot be the ordinary sesame and croton
required for the nome itself, while ^naaTov, if correct, shows that the
sesame and croton cannot be that required ets akkovs vofj-ovs, even if
that subject had not been already discussed in [57] 7-15. The only
other classes of sesame and croton are that eis ras ev AXt^avipeiai
hiade(TfLs [53] 18 and that required ev AXc^aySpeiat [53] 27. Against
the latter class being meant here are the bracketing of the section
[53] 37-[54] 2 and the absence of any mention of this class in the
list of nomes. On the other hand croton ets ras ev AAe^avSpetat Stafleo-ets,
on which no tax was to be levied in the nome, is frequently mentioned
in [60]-[72], and in two cases, [60] 24 and [62] 5, sesame eis ras ev
Ake^avbpeiai biaOea-eis. Since we should expect a general regulation
in these two columns concerning the tax on this class of sesame and
croton parallel to that concerning the tax on sesame and croton ets
akkovs voixovs, and eis Ake^avbpeiav is possible in [58] 2, it is extremely
probable that this section refers to the oil ' for disposal at Alexandria.'
The only difficulty is the mention of colocynth oil in [58] a, cf. [53] 2a
where colocynth oil is bracketed by the corrector. But as sesame oil
is also bracketed by the corrector, the inconsistency need not trouble us.
In [60] 8 (r?jo-]a/io7' is impossible, as is v^op.ov, though the a and v
are extremely doubtful. We should expect ' the nome from which we
take away the sesame and croton,' cf. [57] 14 and [61] 17.
[58.] 4-6 = [60] 9-13- 'The sesame and croton sown in the district
which is set apart shall be received by the oeconomus from the culti-
vators, and he shall forward it to the oil factory in Alexandria.'
5. 77 acpcopia-fjievri was part of the Libyan nome, [61] 3 (cf. [40] 14),
the produce of which was reserved for Alexandria. Hence as in the
case of sesame and croton grown ety akkovs vo^iovs, [43] 22-24, the
oeconomus, not the contractors, received the produce, and no tax was
paid on it to the contractors of the Libyan nome, [61] 4-6, and note
[on 61] I. In [60] 10 the a of Kporoiva is elided.
[58.] 6-8 = [60] 13-15. 'We offer the contract for sale accepting
payment in copper coin, and we will take 24 obols for the stater.'
6. TTwkovjxev reverts to ismkovp-ev in [57] 3 and refers to the whole
contract for the x(apiiv in lines 8-9 and [M€/x<^i]rr;y in line 11, cf. [69] 2
and [72] 12.
[72.] I. There is hardly any doubt that the nome lost is the Cyno-
polite which is wanting to complete the list in [31].
8. The fragment containing part of lines 8-10 is perhaps incorrectly
placed here, though no other place suits it. In any case there is a varia-
tion in it from the usual formula. I conjecture that the scribe wrote km
TOV KpoTwva ov Set KaTepyaaO-qvai, which elsewhere is used only of the
croton supplied from other nomes, in place of Kporwi-os, i. e. the croton to
be grown in the Cynopolite nome. Where arourae are mentioned, they
COMMENTARY. 173
naturally refer to the sesame and croton grown in the nome, and where
sesame and croton are supplied from other nomes, the amount is given
in artabae.
II. See note on [69] 5.
18. Considering the size of the Thebaid compared to other nomes,
the amounts are not large, being less than those assigned to the Saite
nome [60] 19-20. The Thebaid was bounded by the Hermopolite nome
on the north and by the first cataract on the south.
[73,] The roll bought from a dealer in Cairo by Prof. Petrie in Dec.
1893 ends with [72] ; the pieces which constitute D and E were bought
by me in 1895 from the same dealer, with the exception of [100] and
part of [103] on the verso of [100]. This piece and the fragments
printed after [107] I obtained in the Fayoum in December, 1894. For
any one who has studied [l]-[72] a mere glance at D and E and the
fragments is sufficient to convince him that they all belong to the
same series of documents as [l]-[73], and it is hardly necessary to call
attention to the close similarity in colour and texture of the papyrus,
the obvious parallelism of the subjects treated, and the identity of the
writer of [87]-[91] with the writer of [24]-[35]. The roll containing
[l]-[72] probably consisted originally of four separate documents, cf.
note on [38] i, so that the question whether [73]-[107] were ever
actually joined to [l]-[72] is of little importance. Since [1] is the
beginning of a section, it is probable that D and E were not actually
joined, but as the distance between the folds in [73]-[107], so far as it
can be ascertained, shows that these columns formed the outside of a roll,
the core of which had been separated from it, and the distance between
the outside folds of [l]-[72] is perfectly consistent with the view that
[l]-[72] are the missing core of [73]-[107], it is probable that [73]-[107]
were folded round [l]-[72] but not joined to them, and hence were
separated from [l]-[72] by the finders of the papyrus. Whether this
hypothesis be correct or not, [73]-[107] must have been found at the
same place as [l]-[72], and as it is quite certain that [73]-[107] were
found in the Fayoum, it follows that [l]-[72] were found there also ;
cf. note on [38] 3.
[73]-[78] form a section by themselves, and some folds may have
been lost between [78] and [79], but probably not many.
174 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
[73.] I. haypajjLfjLa: see note on [39] i. At first sight the word
appears to be used here in a wider sense than there, for D appears to fix
the relations of the royal banks towards the government oflScials, cf. note
on [3] 2. But such a section as [76] is a hiaypafxjxa in the sense of [39],
and as other sections of a similar character may have been lost, e. g. one
fixing the rate of interest (cf [78] i), the meaning of hiaypaixixa may be
the usual one. In line 4 ]t/3t/c?)i' is perhaps for ^a(T\ikiKr]v. M.
[74.] 2. ot Kara^akkovTes are the tax-payers, not the tax-farmers,
cf [52] 15, 18.
[75.] I. The acute conjecture of Wilcken from P. P. xxvi (G. G. A.
1895, no. 2, p. 156), that there were royal banks in the villages as well as
in the large towns, is thus completely established. No one however had
suspected the surprising piece of information afforded by line 4 and
[76] 3, that the royal banks were farmed, and this fact produces im-
portant modifications in the current view concerning the position of the
banks in this and the next century ; cf Wilcken's Ostraca.
2. The subject of ava(j>epeToi(Tav is probably not at rpaTrefat. The
exact breadth of all of the columns in D is uncertain. The number of
letters lost at the beginnings and ends of lines here is calculated on the
supposition that 3-4 a-noriviToicrav tuh. Tr\v is correct, in [76] on the
supposition that avvTa$r]Tai irpos tov rjyopaKOTa (cf [47] 5 and 13) is right,
in [74] on the supposition that TTpaa-a-ovres ti (cf. [15] 4) is right. The
length of [73], [77] and [78] depends on the correctness of the previous
conjectures combined.
5. M. suggests aiTt] rmv KUTa^akkoixevoov xPVf'-o-''''^]!'-
[76.] 4- No lacuna is more deplorable than that at the beginning of
line 5, which would have given us the discount on copper when paid in
place of silver by the farmers of a irpos apyvpiov oivri. Cf App. ii (5) and
L. P. 62 [5] 16, which gives the discount at some period of the second
century B.C., and App. iii. pp. 198-200 and 214-216.
7. If TOOL T-qv Tpa-neCav rjyopaKon, the lacuna is longer than I have
supposed.
[77.] I. TTavra xakKov bibovai : e.g. the farmers of the ekaiKrj avr], who
paid in copper without any discount, cf [58] 6 and App. iii. p. 195.
[78.] I. Probably ctti T[oKa)t] ; so in line 4.
COMMENTARY. 175
[80,] I. ai'[nypa^oi' ?
2. Probably AEKAT[H2 or AEKAT[i2N.
[84.] 10. Perhaps ZH]TH212, cf. [55] 17.
[85.] 6. vavrua: cf. Rosetta stone 17, Typoa-era^ev be kul rrjv avX\ri\j/iv
Twv ets rr)v vavreiav jutj TToieLcrdai.
[86.] 6. SioiKTjrou : see note on [38] 3.
10. ofj-vvm : this would seem to be the beginning of a jBacnXiKos op/coy,
cf. [27] 6 and App. ii (2). But its occurrence here is very strange.
[87.] From this point to [107] the subject is a tax connected with
clothes ; cf. Rosetta stone 17, rav t ets to ^acrikiKov (TvvTiKovjxe.v(x>v ev roty
lepois fiv(T(nvu>v oOoviaiv aTrekuaev ra bvo jxepri with the mention of jivacrivuiv
in [103] I and odovia in [98] 9 and [99] 5 ; and Rosetta stone 29,
Q)o-avra)S 8e xat ras Tuias tiov jutj avvTeXeapievMV eis to /3a(7tAi/coi' ^vcrcrivutv
od[ovi\uiv Km Todv avvTereXeaixevoov ra irpos rov heiyp,aTi.(jp,ov biacfiopa (aw-
eXucrei') with the -napahnyp-a in [89] 3 and [102] 4. Atj^oy, icttos and
vipavrai are frequently mentioned, and there are two references to the
priests, [106] 3 and [107] 4.
9. There does not seem to be room for aTTOTijveTOi. Perhaps the
right-hand strip belongs to a different column.
[90.] There is a break between this and the preceding column.
[94.] 3. Tpi7]papxr]P-a- cf. P. P. 129. 8.
[95.] 6. i.e. 2 drachmae, i| obols.
[96.] I. Probably xpetai' exw/^iei', cf. [53] 27 and note on [53] 18.
3. rprjpav : rjpa seems to be the termination of a word expressing the
tax on some article, cf. (vrripa the tax on CiJ'"oSj and etn rrjt odo[vi,ripai ?
[103] 3.
4. Cf. note on [12] i.
[98,] I . € : the curved line above e and t?} in lines 2 and ^ represents
TT, i. e. TT-qxvs : cf. B. M. pap. 1. 7.
av{a) means ' at ' or ' multiplied by,' cf. App. ii (5) passim.
[103.] 2. (TTvinreivQiv : cf. LXX. Lev. 13. 47, where B has arvrntvivav.
3. Cf. [96] 3 note.
[104,] 4- Cf. [7] 3.
[107,] I. Cf. [9] 2 note.
[Frag. 1,] I do not feel very confident that all the columns which
176 REVENUE LAWS OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS.
I have assigned to the tenth scribe are by him, [73]-[86], [99]-[107],
except [99] 8-9, and the fragments. It is easy to select two columns
which, when put side by side, appear to be written by different persons,
e. g. [76] and [82], but there are several columns in which the writer's
hand changes gradually from one style to another, and after trying in
vain to distinguish more than one hand I have come to the conclusion
that these columns were all written by him. His change from a rather
formal to a much more cursive hand is clearly exhibited in [7'3]-[78].
That Fragments i and 2 do not belong to the parts of [73]- [102]
written by the tenth hand is quite certain ; Frag. 3 is more doubtful.
Fragments 4, 5, and 6 might belong to [73]-[102], but so far as can be
ascertained they belong to i and 2, for all of them seem to be concerned
with the evvojXLov or pasture-tax. The fragments grouped together under
one number come at corresponding folds and therefore at corresponding
intervals, most probably of about 8 inches, so that each one belongs to
a different column. But the order in which they are placed under each
number is in some cases doubtful. Frag, i {a) and {b) go together, and
are in the right order, and so are {c)-{g), but whether (a)-(d) come before
or after {c)-{g) and whether there are any corresponding fragments lost
between {a)-{b) and {cy{g) is unknown. Similarly in Frag. 2, {a) and
{b) go together, and so do {c)-{f) and {g)-{i), but the position of these
three subdivisions to each other is unknown. In Frag. 4, {a)-{e), (g)-{/},
{m)-(n) go together, (/) is by itself. In Frag. 5, (a) and {b} are by
themselves, (c) and (d) go together. In Frag. 6, («)-(<;) go together, so
do («)-(/), and {g)-{/i).
APPENDIX I.
Papyrus 62 of the Louvre, Notices et Extraits des
Manuscrits, vol. XVIII, Part II, 1866.
Col. 1. [iruiXovfiev ras ev rjcoi O^ypvyx^irrji oivas ets to aL
[ aiTo ixriv]os Mecropri ety bcobeKafJirivov
[koi ras eTrayojuez'as] Tj/xepas e a[y]opa^€Te 8e
[ras covas km] /xeAAere ij.r)[6]eva avKocpavrrjcreiv
5 [ M»)8e] 8[ta]/3aXXeii' aX\ airo tov ^eXriaTOV
[ ]i Kara tovs voij,ovs Kai ra 8ta
[ypa^jxara km ra ir/jjoarayjuara /cat ra bbopOconida
[ra \q(Toixfva €(p iKaarrji covrjs
[ras 8 oivas ava]TT\rip<>)aeiv ovdeva VTToXoygv
10 [ to] ^acrikiKov irapevpecrei rjrti'[t]ovi;
[ .]etcr5at cos km tqs eybeias irpa^O-q
\crovTai ot] ra tcXtj kajx^avovTes oaa km
[ eyy]vovs be KaTa(rrrjcrovcn,v oi eyXa
TCOt
DSovres rojt otKojiJOjucot km ^a(n[A.iKcotJ ypa\j.naTei
15 [ Tcoji' e7ri,8[eKar£o]j»
[ ]ra)[. a(^ ?]s ay 7)/xe/3as]
Col. 2. TTapoixoXoyrjdrji [ewi rrjs] Trpacrecos ev Tjjuepats A Kara
Trez>0rj^[e]poi' [roi; €7n]j8aXXoz'Tos rovrcov 8e fa a-vpL^loXa]
Te6i]a-eTa[i, acj) tjs av rj;x]epas \r]v KaraayovTinv Tas (avas p.r\ bteyyvr)
(TUXTiv ev TCOL (npidpevcoi -)(povoii eTtavaTTpadrja-ovTai
a
(^•yvTcov ai (ovai. K[aL e]av rt a(j)evpepa yevrjTai ■jTpa)(drj(rovTai
TTapaxpTlpo, ToLs be j3ovKop.evois virep^aWeiv peTa to tov
15 daWov bodr}vaL e^ecrrai ev avTcoi rcot irparripKOL ovk e
[\aa\iTovos be tuiv [eJTrtSe/carcoy
[ot 8] ey\a[3ovTes ras oovas TioLrjaovTai, Ta aTroTipajuara
[/xejra tov [oikoi/ojuod] Kat tov /SacrtXtKou ypappaTeais
[Kat] ot Trapa [toi^tcov] Karacr^ovres eyyvovs KaTaarqaovaiv
Col. 4. rots TTpoyeypappevois a ov Xoyia-d-qaeTai rots TeXoovais
ets Ta 8t avTcov KaTaaTaO-qa-opeva bieyyvrjpuiTa
oiKOvopr]dr)creTai be Kat ra TovTutv avp^oXa tov avrov
Tpoirov at 8 avai> virap)(ovcr(iiv
jJ-eXP'- ''"'^ '''- f""' /^'? ^■"'^ TLvaiv aWo tl XvaiTekfarepov
(TVvxuipriOrji eTrt ttjs Trpaaeas rots 8 eyXaiJ,0avovcnv
10 ras coi'as /xeraSo^Tjcerat vtto rcdv TrpoirpayixaTev
Ofxeviav Ta yevrjixaTa tmv '7TpoeXri\v(^6v')dvL(ov rjix^pcav
ju.era xeLpoypa(j}ias opKOV ^aaiXiKov
o be bia\oyi(Tp.os ttjs eyk-qifrews avaTaOrjcrerai. irpos avrovs
Kara p,r]va e/c rcoi> •nittTovTuiv eiri tyjv Tpa-neCav
15 Todv he TTpos yevrjixara bwLKOVixevatv o fxev xeLpicrpLos
ea-Tai 8ta rav irapa tcov fiaaiXiKUtv ypapLixaTeonv ei\ridrj(ToiJ,eva irpos tov xeipi(T\j.ov T(ov yevr\
fiaratv ra he (Tvva)(6riuop,eva 6taypa^?;o-€Ta[t] eis to ^acriKiKOV
Col. 5. aKoXoD^as rots v-napyovcri irepi tovtcdv TtpocrTayixatn
Kai xpr)fj,aTi(TiJ,ois
rots 8 avairXrjpbxrovaiv Tas wvas hodr)aeTa,i ov/fMyta
eavnep eKirXrjpciiG-uxnv Kat Ka^eora/corey ra hioixoXo
hieyyvr]iJ.aTa
5 yr]devTa tov 7=: h x. ■npocrhiaypa^ovcriv cktos rjjs
e[y]XrjT/feo)s ot 8e iropa rcor TOiroypap-piaTeuiv Kadeara
fievoi TTpos Te tovtois Kai rots aAAots x^V"''/^'"* Kpid-q
Kai
(TovTai viTO Tiav ^aaikiKOiv ypapiiiaTetov ets X^P" ^^
OD^ez/t ovdev haxrovcriv ei he p.r\ ov irapabexdriaeTai
10 atJrots rots 8 eyXa^ovai e^aKoXovdrja-ei Ta vnoKeip-eva
■npov av^lBoXa XaixfiaveTcxxrav irapa tov
TpaT!eC,iTov viroypav eav 8 a[A.X]cos oiKOVoixcaaiv awpot aurots eaovTai
15 at hoaeis
Ta>v he irpos apyDJ/jjioii corai' irpoabiaypa'^ovcriv aXayrjv
cos 77JS fJ-vas I = [c] Kat KaTaycayiov f Kai Ti\t.r\v
A a 3
i8o APPENDIX I.
(TTivpiboiv KM raA.X avrjX.(Ofj,aTa afc oxtt fivai ij3y
Kai Twv TTpos x^^Kor i(TOvoiJ.[ov\ (vT-qpas fiev x^pts ttis
20 vnoKeiixevqs eu r?ji» ewtcTKeurjii bpa)(p.r]s a km ets ro
Karayaiyiov aWas [ ]/3 coot eivai y
Col. 6. ro)jj be Xonrcav u>vmv twv TTplos X'^^fo^' io'ovojj.ov]
\(i)plS T(i)V aiTO TOV •j(eipi(jA [a)/iiara h •]
eaiJ be rives tcov TeXutvmv wXeious (jiv[as eyXa^uxrt]
5 /cat ez; rurw )iiez; emyevqfxa iroLcoaiv ev [ncrij) 8 eXXt]
TTcocrii' aiTtAoytcr^Tjcrerat ra e'i!iyevrip,a\Ta ]
Xcopis TOV eyKVKKiov ocroi ay i km aTioi[ ]
IJ,r] -TTpoabLeyyvrjcrciocnv tov o(f>ei\riiJ,aros Toy[ ]
at covat eTravaTTpaOrjcrovTM tov evpLcrKovTos K[ai to o^et]
10 Xrifia KM to a(j)evpep.a upaydrtaovTai tois b ay[aTT\r]pov(Ti.]
Tas avas ov[d]eis [leOe^ei i:\riv to)v em Tr)[ ]
(TVVKaTaypa<^ricrofxevuiv eav be irapa TavTa TTloi-qa-axTiv]
re pieTabovs awoTeicrei einTip,ov 7v k km o [ ]
XajBcov ^ K eav be Tives irpos Tas eyX.r]\j/eis o(f)e[LAuip[a]s ttjs r)p,epa[s]
eav 8 vnep^oXwv evea-Tr]Kri\i] ecos tov Xv6\r]va\i ot be rpa[7re]
ftrat avoicrovaiv ep, p,ev rats [K]a6 rjpepav ecj)[r]]pepia-iv
10 em rTjs biaypacjirjs tov Te\ov[s or]t eKKeiTai ets vnep^o'\Kiov\
ev be rots p.r]V(,eiois to Kadev [tuiv] em ras beKa r\p,ep[as\
eKKeip-evinv eav b em . ev[. . . f/.]?j eKTfdrji, prjbe r[Mt]
Stot/crjrTjt (cat rmt €'7rt/x€Xrj[rr)t] irapa^p'qpla] aveve[y]
Kcoa-LV ■7!pa)(Br]crovTai. e/catrrov [. . . .jfxaros t[o ]
15 p.evov reXos T!evTaT!Xov\v eav 6] ot TeX(i>\yai KJat 01 avT[i]
[ypa]<^ets /xrj iTOLaxnv K[ada)s] TrpoyeypaiTTai KaTaTTOcrTaXrj
[o-oi']rat irpos tov 6to[tK]rjr[7;i^ p,e]Ta <|)t;A.aicr)s Kat ra i5ta
[aiir](B2^ ai'a[X]7j(^6rj[(re]rat ets ro ^acrikiKov ovtuis yap rcot re
[^ao-tA]et ro be[ov'\ eo-rat ot re ^ovXop,evoi KTriaacrdai, rt Tcav xatws
20 [ ov\ a-Tepr]6r\(T0VTai tov toiovtov.
At Professor Lumbroso's suggestion I revised the text of this
papyrus in Notices et Extraits by a study of the original in September,
1894. Several corrections of the numerous inaccuracies found in the
Paris editors' text have already been published by Lumbroso, Revillout,
and Wilcken in various books or articles, and the last-named in August
1895 most generously placed at my disposal his unpublished copy of
i82 APPENDIX I.
the text made several years ago. Where I have adopted his readings in
preference to my previous ones, I have recorded the fact in the notes.
Most of the papyrus has been explained by Lumbroso in the eighteenth
chapter of his admirable Recherches. I confine my notes to points on
which we have new suggestions to make, or on which the Revenue
Papyrus throws light.
[1,J 1. Cf. Rev. Pap. [57] 3 and note on [53] 18. Whether TrcoXovixev
be right or not, I think this papyrus was issued in the king's name.
TO aL is a great puzzle. The universal practice of the Ptolemies, so
far as we know, was to count the period between their accession and the
beginning of the civil year, Thoth ist, as their first year. Therefore if
€is TO aL coincides with eis hcoheKajxrivov kul ras eTrayo/xez;aj rjixe pas, not only
is the first year of this sovereign a full year, but the papyrus seems to be
written before the first year had begun. Revillout (R. E. vi. 154) has
tried to solve the diflSculty by supposing that the first year applies to
the second Cleopatra, r/ a8eX<^?j, who on his theory ousted Euer-
getes II in the fortieth year of his reign, but decided not to begin the
computation of her own reign before the next Thoth ist. The difficulty
however of supposing that the sovereign did not begin his or her reign
at once is equally great whether the preceding sovereign was dead or
whether he was only exiled, and with regard to the particular year
suggested by Revillout there is the further difficulty that a Theban
papyrus (A. E. F. pap. 19) and an inscription (Strack. Mitth. K. Deutsch.
A. I. in Ath. 1894, p. 230) are dated in the forty-first year of Euergetes II.
I am inclined therefore to doubt whether etj ro aL really coincides with
etj hMheKafxrivov, especially as the starting-point of the tax is not, in accord-
ance with the conjecture of the Paris editors, accepted by Revillout, otto
©0)9 e£o]s Mio-op-q, but probably airo ij.r]v]os Meo-oprj, cf. Rev. Pap. [57] 4;
and I would suggest that by ' the first year ' is meant only Mesore and
the (Ttayop.ivai r]jxepai, the rest of the boibeKaiJ.r]vov falling in the second
year. It is not impossible that a reference to the second year is lost in
the lacuna at the beginning of line 2. In any case there must have been
an exceptional cause for Mesore being the starting-point, as Wilcken
remarks; cf note on Rev. Pap. 1. c.
4. Possibly hLKULuis, cf [8] 19.
6. Perhaps TrpayixaTevcren-dajt. voixovs : cf note on Rev. Pap. [21] 11.
hiaypaii.jj.aTa: cf notes on Rev. Pap. [39] i and [73] i. biopOcaixeda : i.e.
APPENDIX I. 183
Siop9co/xara, cf. Rev. Pap. [57] i. From the way in which these classes
are mentioned, it would seem that the papyrus is not included in any one
of them, and if so, I should suggest it is a i^poypa\i.\>.a., cf. Rev. Pap. [37] 6.
But in [8] 5 there seems to be a cross-reference to another passage in
the papyrus as a btaypaixfxa, though that would not show that the whole
document was a 8taypaju/xa, for biaypaixixara are scattered up and down
the voixos cTTi T?)t e\aiKi]L, cf. Rev. Pap. 39. i note.
9. The meaning appears to be, as M. suggests, that the tax-farmers
were to fill up the list of /^eroxotj not passing over any person who
was liable (virokoyos) to be called upon to serve as Tf\oovr]s, cf. [5] 3
where 01 avaTrkqpovirres receive a special o\j/(oviov, and note on Rev. Pap.
[34] 4.
13. Cf. Rev. Pap. [34] 2, [56] 14-15, where the security has to be
only one-twentieth greater.
14. In this papyrus we find the /SatnAjKoy ypafiixarevs associated with
the oeconomus, no longer the avriypaipevi, as in the Rev. Pap., cf. [3] 18,
[4] 16-17. The antigrapheus is not mentioned in L. P. 62, though
avTiypa(j>€is are associated with the tax-farmers in [8] 15. Cf. [8] 3,
where I coijjecture avTLypa4>eas, though it is not clear whether these are
the same persons as those mentioned in [8] 15, and see note on Rev.
Pap. [3] 2.
16. The Paris editors read ireTTToil^Kev aXXmv (sic), but there is
nothing to justify Treir or aXkiov in the facsimile, so that if these letters
ever existed here, they disappeared long ago. But acj) tjs av rifxepas is
required by ■napop,okoyrjdr\i . . . ev rjfxepaLs A, cf. [2] 3, Rev. Pap. [34] 3 and
[53] 6, and following [34] 4 I should suggest some phrase like raj be
Karaypacpas TTOirjcrovTaL twv xpr)//,a]ra>[i'.
[2.J 5- Perhaps [eyy!;]a)i'.
6. jurjvtetois : cf. [8] 11.
7. I was unable to decipher the mutilated letters after rrjv. Wilck.
reads them eo-°, i. e. erro^ixiv-qv], accepting the reading /3€/3ata)(7[w in the
next line. The papyrus however seemed to me to have ^e/3atQ)r[.
The Paris editors read e7r]t tmv vnodr]KMv, but there is no trace of
I rtav in the facsimile.
9. eiXr](j)OT(jiv : cf [3] 6. M. suggests t(ov ova-Lav for the lacuna.
10. Perhaps Kuraypaipas, cf. Rev. Pap. [34] 4.
1 1. aTTokiTTcoai, cf. pap. Zois i, to a-uoku-nov.
i84 APPENDIX I.
12. wo-tv I owe to Wilcken ; the meaning is clearly that the sureties
are to be men of substance able to make up any deficiency left by the
tax-farmers.
13. Cf. [1] 9 and note on [5] 3.
14-16. Probably Soxroucrijz^, cf. [3] 6-7 eor 6e 01 ka^ovres ra a-vf^-jSoXa
IxTj leiravleveyKwa-ip ewt rriv TpaTreCav. The conjectural restoration of 16
occurred to me since I had seen the original, and I do not know whether
TpaiaCo-v suits the vestiges of letters visible at the end of the line which
in the facsimile may be almost anything.
17. oiKovofj.ii](jr\i : cf. [5] 14.
18. Probably Kara to iipoypaixjxa or whatever the title of the papyrus
was.
[3.] 9. K[ai: Wilcken.
II. KaTaa-)(OVT(ov: cf. Jos. A. J. xii. 4. ID ilKoaw hr] Koi bvo ra tt]s
'Sivpias Te'Arj . . . KaTa(Tx<^v.
14. Cf. Rev. Pap. [2] i note.
17. a-noTipap.a: cf. Rev. Pap. [18] 16.
[4.] I. Tots TipoyeypapifjLevois : i. e. the oeconomus and basilicogram-
mateus, [3] x8j cf. [1] 14-
7. M. suggests Karakoyov as one word.
8. The number of the year here might be 8, 8 and a often resembling
each other closely, but in the other cases it is certainly a.
15. TTpoi yevrffxara was seen by Wilcken and Mahaffy to be two words,
and opposed to tcov wpos apyvpiov cuvuiv and tu>v Trpos ^takKov la-ovop-ov in
[5] 16-19. The aTTOjuotpa was in the third century B.C. partly a wpos
yevijiiara mvt], but subsequently became an wvrj itpos xuXkov laovofjiov,
cf. note on Rev. Pap. [37] 19, and App. iii.
19. -npos rpa-ireCav implies, as M. suggests, that the receipts of the tax-
farmers were to be credited to them in money, and that the securities
would be held in trust pending the 'handling of the crops.' Cf. Rev.
Pap. [34] ID note.
2,1. biaypacpTjaeTai : cf. note on Rev. Pap. [34] 14.
[5.] 3. As M. suggests, 01 avairXripovvTes are those who offer to fill up
the list of farmers or undertake to obtain reXoovai and eyywt. If they
were successful, they were to receive a commission of 10 per cent., but
they were not allowed to offer a person money if he would join in the
cavT] (eis x^P"' ovdevL ovdev ScocroiKn). If they offered money, their recom-
APPENDIX I. 185
mendation was rejected. This is more satisfactory than taking 01 ava-
■nXr\povvTes as equivalent to ot eyXajSovrfs, meaning the tax-farmers who
fulfilled the terms of the contract. For in that case we should have to
suppose that all TfKatvai might receive an o\p-MVLov besides the firiyevrnxa,
but cf. Rev. Pap. [12] 13, [31] 14, and [39] 14 notes. These passages
show that the payment of anything besides the eiriyevrjua was then quite
exceptional, and it is unlikely that the tax-farmers would obtain more
favourable terms in the second century B.C. than in the third. If M.'s
explanation is correct, the difficulty of obtaining tax-farmers and sureties
had become serious. Cf. note on Rev. Pap. [34] 4.
16. The premium on silver at this period was therefore iOj\ per cent,
100 drachmae in silver being equivalent to iiOj\ drachmae Trpos ■)(a\Kov,
cf. App. ii (5), where the rate of exchange is not very different, and
App. iii pp. 198-aoo and 214-216.
[6.] 6. Wilcken suggests avrois. Cf. Rev. Pap. [17].
7. ay : Wilcken.
II. ov6eis : Mahaffy. At the end of the line Wilcken suggests eiri
r7;[j irpacrecos.
13. Perhaps [T;apa]\al3uiv.
14. d€(av in another hand seems to have no reference to the subject
of the papyrus.
15. There are here three regulations concerning exemptions from
taxation; (1) areArj 8 (eoruj or ixeverui?) e&js rov aL, stating that the
existing arekeiai would continue as before: (2) 16-18, stating that if any
new exemptions were granted vtto [ tov /3a((rtX€a)y) ?, an equivalent allow-
ance would be made to the tax-farmers from the produce already
collected : (3) 19-20, stating that if any of the existing oTeXetot were
confiscated, the tax would be added to the sum which the tax-farmers
had contracted to pay. 20-22 are obscure, but apparently refer to the
tax being put up to auction again under certain circumstances.
[8.] I. The Paris editors read 8e/ca [to] vTTep^o[\wv Toijv TLix-qa-ecov.
There is no trace of irepPo in the facsimile, and there is not room for
vnepfioKiov and tchv. Perhaps v\T!ep T(ii'\v,
2. The subject of TToi-qa-ovTat is probably the oeconomus and basihco-
grammateus, cf [1] 14 note, and Rev. Pap. [14] 4 note. Perhaps Trpos
TOis TeXviviois, cf. line 5 '"'poj ■'■'?' rpaireCqi, but in line 3 -npos has the
accusative not dative, and the accusative is the natural construction.
Bb
i86 APPENDIX I.
5. The 'ten days mentioned in the h\.aypa\s.\i.a'' may be a reference to
the ten days in line i ; cf. note on [1] 6.
14. \ovo\[xaTo .]
/^apfjiovdi t/3
'ES.0/i'/3'
Tlaxoivs k(
'Av|e^'
TlavvL kB
'ASjaayS'
5 EiTei(^ y
xxa^'
[ ]akka
TS/cjjy't/iJ'
K
'Ayoe^'
Anixcav[. . .
•It- 7'''/3'
1. See note on [24] 9.
2. (xx).
[/SatrtAevoiToy rTroXe/iiatoii] tod nroXejuatot) cra)77)p[os]
[eroijy - . e^ tepecoy ] tov Aaiq-Tov . .
[AXe^avbpov km Oeuiv a]8eA^a)j» Kavr\(popov Apa\ivor]s\
V
$t\a8eA(^0D juTjjzJa Aio k8 8ov . .[ ]
]{ [•••)] Soxrt^aj'ei a7r[. . .
oixvvw ]j ^aaiXea UroXepLMov Ka[i j3]a[(n]
Xicraav Apaivoriv d]eovs abe\(f>ov' tovs t[ ]
Jets V7T0 TOV TTpos Tr]i av[ ]
lj.]epLbos Ta )(Q)jua7tKa irpayixa
Ta oiJ.(opi,o]Ka ovre avros voa-cpeLova-Oai [. . .]
. . .] 77ap€Dpe(n{i>) r)inviovv eav [. . .]
^(rv]vTe\iLV (rot avdrifiepov r) ttji [vtrre]
B ba
i88 APPENDIX II.
[paiai '\f.v rcoi \LfxviT7]i ypa^taai [. .]v
[ \Ka Toiv TTpayixalrloiv eis to /3acr[tAt]
15 [kov ]^e(Tdai TcoL jSacrtAet op/c[ ]
o
[ 'npayij]aTevfxevovs tov av[ ]
et . . .
[ ] • • • P'Ciievov . as tcol oplKcoL . . . .]
I. The formula shows that this papyrus cannot be older than the
twenty-seventh year, cf. Rev. Pap. [1] i and Introd. pp. xix sqq.
a. After -tov are two letters like Tjt.
3. The number of letters which may be lost at the end of the line
is not quite certain. The writing is extremely faint throughout.
6. Cf. Wilck. Akt. xi, and P. P. xlvi {i>). There' is not much doubt
that this papyrus is a written ^aaiXiKos opicos ; see lines 15, 17, and cf.
[27] 6 note.
10. Apparently vofr^ieiirdai is intended. Cf. [27] 11.
13. iv Tcoi \ip.vLTrji: perhaps the Fayoum, cf. [31] 12,, note and [71]
II note. The subject of the papyrus is connected with the building
of the dykes for reclaiming land from the lake, cf. Cleon's correspondence
in P. P.
3.
HpaKXeibrjs et yaip^iv
p.iTp7](7ai rots VT!oyeypa\xp,ivoLs yecopyoLS
bia Tcov K(x>p.apyjiiv km Kai}xoypap,p,aTewv
baveiov ets tov cruopov joy KpoTccygs
5 ev TOOL K^L ap-a rots tKipopiois KpoTcoyos
eK TOV k8L ets 8e tovto eTrt
■7Tkr]dos KM avp,l3okov irapag-x^ . . . ijpos . . .
fppuxTO L Ke A9vp a (or A)
ets Be/)ei'tKt8a 8ta KUipapyuiv KpoTcavos Trapa
10 p . eadiovTos km toov aWiov KpoTcovos
iv6i.ov KpoToovos
I. The papyrus was covered with a thick coating of plaster and
APPENDIX II. 189
the ink is extremely faint ; the ends of the lines are for the most
part illegible. Cf. the regulation concerning the distribution of seed
in [43] 3 note.
7. Perhaps napauxi's irpos e^e.
8. The twenty-fifth year belongs to Philadelphus or Euergetes.
4. (E").
[ (pv\]aKlT(iLIV
[ eTTtcrJrarou (pvkaKiTOiv
[ ]tov Xoiax Kai Ti;/3t rou rjL
[a>s Tov] ij-rivos x" ''" 1" X '^"' axxre Ap . . . itot
5 [(f>vka\KiTr]i T?)s noXe/xttiiJoy p.epihos cos tov p,r]vos tt
[X" ]pf '^'" '^"■'"f -Aj^ 'Wt TTJS ®eiXl(TTOV
[cos TOD iJ,ri]vos V x"' p KttL (aa-Te Bicovi, rrjs UpaKXeibov
[jj-epLbos] (OS TOV p.j]vos p. x*^ ■"■ '^'*' coore
[ ]i TT]S p-iKpas A.i/ni'Jjs cos tov pr^vos ^ X" ^
10 [ ] Kai coore fipobois tois aKoXovdoviri rcot
[ ] TOVTUiv (l)\yX\aKiTuiv oven A. o'<^u>vwv
[ ] eKa(rTOi'[. • •] x" ^ ''''' cocrre rois
[ ] prjvos ovcTL Ki znj
[ ] KOt coore rots ukoXov
[dov(Ti ] Kai coore rots aKoXov
15 [00110-t ] aDTOD 7K Kai
[ ] rots Ayrjvopi
3. The eighth year may belong to either the third, fourth or fifth
Ptolemy.
4. Judging by the comparatively low numbers of the drachmae, they
are probably on the silver standard but Trpos xa^Koi^, cf. Rev. Pap. [40]
and App. iii pp. 196-8. If pepibos after ©ejuio-i-ov is understood, not
written out, about five or six letters are lost at the beginning of lines
3-10. coo-re: cf. Rev. Pap. [60] 21 note.
5. cos TOV prjvos : cf Rev. Pap. [12] 15.
9. Xipvr]s : M. Cf. P. P. xiii (5) 3, where a piKpa Xipv-q is mentioned.
10. ecjiobois : cf. Rev. Pap. [10] i note. Here they are probably the
inspectors of the dykes.
190
APPENDIX II.
(«) Col. 1.
Col. 2.
]'AlJ0;8
].y/3'
]2K;8t'/3'
]^L
]/2KyLy7/3'
] 2„
] Ez;
\yive.Tai
\yvq
[ABL/
\oy 5- 29
V^^'
] Pl
[ywerat apyjuptoii rK^f—
{i)
//iie coi/3t73'[
Kat Trpos x'^^'^oz' ko [ajii rj/" 28
o ava, 7) <})^
5 Xe ava [C/\ 2^/3/
Ky ava e p\a
/ixe pvfi h'^pvCf
ai apyvpiov ^ k.\Lyf
yivetai p.e 'A/x8i/3' T^a'Ar/c^/"
10 (Tw be roLs mpos apyvpiov T^a
'AvoC/=
Ktti oivov irepieivai (ft^i^y'
(^)
p-'nl
ava
H
ava
. . .
V9l3'[
ava
. . .
pi^Y'i-'i
ava
. . .
5 T
[a]va T
A^
yiveT[ai
fxe] rwe?-'
'YvkOc
ai apyv[piov]
0)1
Tqa— c
yLV€T[ai /Lie]
'Ai/^TreLS'
^7 'Et£8/-
crv[v] be [tols] irpos apyvpiov
7^18 'At/3/—
[kui irepieivai
t] OIVOV
V'X^SB'
]rois A6iacrv\ou
vix^y'
] p\a
KaLb'
[ ■■]
ava
I
v[..
[p7r^Lt'/3V6']
ava
1)
'Avqi3/=
[idUfi' ]
ava
d
P09
APPENDIX II.
191
15
{d)
['
ava
ta
pi
[,e
ava
6/
p-^f
['T
ava
e=
pij.e=
[A^.
ava
C-
TkC[.
[a
ava
U
c/
['L
ava
C
oyf
W
ava
n
= ^/
[Cy
ava
e
Xa/—
[m
ava
c=
pAe =
[e
ava
5"
X
[/f.6.
. . .
ITv/rOa
— c
[at apyvpiov
]'Trqe/—C
[yjrera
[
],x, 4>ohp' '^v^(if
Kat 0)2; Tptr7)[
/
'B[
KepafMov poeL
ei/nj/xaTOj
i.Qy'
a<|) coi'
T7e7rpa[7-at
wpos apyvpiov
Me[
lyy
ava t
pAy =
8
[ai-a] ^
Ag-
utT) \-y'i^'
[aj^a] T)
^rTVa=:
/c8L
{avd\ C=
pO0/
XS
[ava[ C
SXtj
'C
[ava] 5/-
— c
pib/-C
(a) I. These fragments which all belong to a papyrus of the third
century B.C., are probably accounts of an oeconomus or antigrapheus.
They relate to metretae of wine received as taxes and sold, cf [34] 10
note, payment being made in copper or silver. They are for the most
part in three columns, the first containing the number of the metretae,
the second the rate at which the metretae were sold, the third the total
amounts. The sums are added up at the bottom of each list, and where
the payments had been made in copper, the sum is converted into the
equivalent amount of silver.
192 APPENDIX II.
24
metre
tae
70
jj
Z^
jj
23
)'
152
metretae
which are
in
silver
Dismissing for the moment col. i which is too fragmentary for any
conclusion to be drawn from it alone, I proceed to col. a about which
there is no doubt. The account in lines 3-8 is as follows —
at 8 dr. 3 obols (T7poy yoKKov) 204 drachmae
„ 8 dr. 560
„ 7 dr. 3 obols 36a dr. 3 obols.
„ 5 dr. 131 dr.
1 1 57 dr. 3 obols
1043 dr. 3 obols.
It will be noticed that in line 6 the multiplication is incorrect, since
the number of drachmae should be 115, but the addition is correct.
1 157 dr. 3 obols in copper were therefore equivalent to 1043 dr. 3 obols
in silver. On this use of at meaning ' which are equivalent to ' cf
Leipzig pap. 8 F 32, and on the importance of this for the coinage
question see App. iii. The average price of these metretae was
a little under 7 silver drachmae each, cf. [31] 4 note. The average
in line 9, 10443-^^ metretae for 7338 dr. 3 obols, is a little over 7 dr. for
each metretes. In lines 5, 6, &c. L means \.
{b) is a similar list of metretae sold iipos x^^kov, the total in lines 6-7
being 3851- metretae for 3428 dr. i obol, which is in silver 3091 dr.
li obols. The grand total in line 8 is 4785I (corrected to 4810) metretae
for 41964 dr. 4 obols, i. e. about 8 dr. 4 obols each.
(c) is a similar list; a number of metretae are sold for 3791 dr.
1 4 obols, which is in silver 3399 dr. 4I obols. Total 574! metretae
for 4462 dr. 3 obols, i. e. a little over 7I drachmae each.
In {d) the metretae are sold tt/dos apyvpiov, the average being about
8 drachmae, since far the greatest number is sold at that price.
To return to (a), in col. i lines 10 and 11 obviously refer to metretae
sold for 6 drachmae each, the totals being 209 and 160 drachmae, and
we should expect line 12 to be the sum of these two lines, cf. lines 7-9.
But in place of 369 drachmae, we have 332 dr. 4 obols. Probably the
prices in 10 and 11 were -rrpos x«^KOi), and the writer has given the
equivalent amount in silver without writing down the amount Trpos
xa\Kov. The proportion between silver and copper is then very nearly
the same as in (c).
APPENDIX III.
THE SILVER AND COPPER COINAGE OF THE PTOLEMIES.
§ I. Introduction.
I PROPOSE in this Appendix to discuss the evidence available for
the solution of three questions ; (i) what was the normal ratio of
exchange between a silver and a copper drachma ; (2) under what
circumstances was copper at a discount, and what was the discount ;
(3) what was the ratio of weight between a silver coin and an equi-
valent amount of copper coins, or what was the ratio between silver
and copper regarded as coins, and was this the same as the ratio
between silver and copper regarded as metals ? The generally accepted
authority for the monetary standards and ratios of value in Ptolemaic
coinage is M. Eugene Revillout, whose famous Lettres a M. Lenonnant
in the Rev. Egypt, for 1882-3 have been thought to offer a satisfactory
solution of the difficult problems. The evidence on which he there
relied consisted partly of demotic papyri, partly of coins. Since then
however much new evidence has come to light. In 1883 appeared
Mr, Poolers monumental Catalogue of the Ptolemaic coins in the British
Museum, in which we have a classification of the copper coins by
a numismatist of the first rank. The discovery of the Petrie papyri
and now of the Revenue Papyrus has revolutionized our knowledge
of the earlier Ptolemaic period. Lastly Prof Wilcken has collected
much valuable information connected with the coinage in his forthcoming
Corpus Ostracorum, information which he has most generously placed
at my disposal. To these^ I am told, will shortly be added M. Revillout's
long promised Melanges stir la inHrologie et Teconomie politique, &c.
Whether he has changed his views in any respects I do not know,
though from the fact that he has just republished his Lettres i
Cc
194 APPENDIX in.
M. Lenormant with only a few unimportant alterations, I conjecture
that he has not. The uncertainty is perhaps regrettable, for the con-
tention of this essay is that of the conclusions first enunciated by
M. Revillout in the Revue Egyptologique, re-asserted in his Papyrus
Bilingue du temps de Philopator (Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 189 1-2), and
now once more asserted in his re-issue of the Lettres, the greater part
is altogether invalid, and the remainder requires in several cases
much modification. Side by side with my criticism of M. Revillout's
theory, I propose to develop my own theory on the whole problem,
so far as the available evidence can as yet carry us. And here let
me say that however much I may have occasion to disagree with
M. Revillout, no one recognizes more fully than myself that it was
his elucidation of the signs for the fractions of the drachma in Greek
papyri, and the evidence from demotic papyri brought by him to
bear upon the question, which have made any satisfactory solution
possible.
The history of Ptolemaic coinage has been divided by M. Revillout
into three periods; (i) the period of the silver standard from Soter
to Euergetes ; (2) the period of transition, when copper first comes
into general use in the reigns of Philopator and Epiphanes ; (3) the
period of the copper standard from Philometor onwards. It will be
convenient to follow this classification, and for the present I pass
over the evidence of the copper coins, and confine myself to the
documentary evidence, which, supplemented by the evidence of the
silver coins, must be the first guide towards forming a satisfactory theory
concerning the copper coinage, although the ultimate solution of the
chief problems connected with the standard and ratio must be looked
for more from the numismatist than from the scholar.
§ 2. Documentary Evidence for the period of the Silver Standard.
First then as to the copper coinage of the three earliest Ptolemies,
what was a copper drachma, and in what relation did it stand to the
silver drachma? Here we are met at the outset by M. Revillout,
who arguing from the silence of the demotic papyri on the subject
of copper maintains that copper was only money of account, used
merely for paying the fractions of the silver drachma, and that silver
APPENDIX III. 195
was the practically universal coinage. But how little reliance can be
placed on the silence of the demotic documents was shown both by
the Petrie papyri, which contain mentions of comparatively large
sums paid in copper drachmae as far back as the, thirty-first year of
Philadelphus, and by the Revenue Papyrus, which proves that in the
twenty-seventh year of the same king all the accounts of one of the
principal revenues in the country, the oil monopoly, were kept in
copper, the contractors paying the government in copper, [60] 13-15,
and receiving payments in copper, [40] 9-1 1 note.
Copper therefore was largely used in Philadelphus' time not merely
in private transactions, but even in official payments to the government.
In what relation did it stand to silver? The Rev. Pap. shows that
in the case of the oil monopoly copper was accepted by the government
from the tax-farmers at its full value. This is the only possible
interpretation of [60] 13—15 Tr^Xoujuez' T7\v oovriv irpos X'^^'^oi' ^ai Xri\j/oiJi.eda
eis Tov ararqpa o/3oXovs k5. From the context either the stater or the
obols must be copper coins, cf. [76] 4. The silver stater is by far
the commonest silver coin of the Ptolemaic period, and there is no
evidence, documentary or numismatic, that there were copper staters.
The phrase in the pap. C of Leyden, ^(akK.ov^ aTaTr^jjurjovs, which has
been sometimes thought to prove the existence of copper staters, is,
as M. Revillout has excellently pointed out, quite different from xa^f^ou
oTOTTjpay, and means ' copper coins representing staters.' Therefore
in [60] 13 as the staters cannot be copper, and gold staters were worth
20 silver drachmae, which is clearly unsuitable, they must be silver
and the obols must be copper. The formula by which the equality
between silver and copper is here expressed, not ' 6 obols = i drachma,'
or '48 chalci=i drachma,' or anything else, but * 34 obols = i stater,'
is extremely important, because it shows that just as the typical unit
of silver both here and in [76] 4 is the stater or tetradrachm, by far
the commonest coin, so the typical unit of copper in both cases is
the obol, which therefore was probably also a common coin. The
far-reaching consequences of this formula will appear when I come
to discuss the demotic papyri of the next period.
In the case of certain taxes then copper obols were accepted in
payment of large sums without discount. But there is no mention
in the Rev. Pap. of the 'copper drachmae' which are found in con-
CC2
196 APPENDIX III.
temporary documents from the Petrie collection. Wherever payments
in copper are mentioned in the Rev. Pap., the payments are uniformly
■npos yoKKov, i. e. in drachmae on the silver standard paid in copper,
about which phrase there is no difficulty ; but the phrase -^oKkov bpaxfJ-ai
does not appear. With regard to the instances of the last phrase in
the Petrie papyri, is the theory provisionally proposed by Mr. Mahaffy
to be accepted, that they are ' copper drachmae ' in the same sense
as the copper drachmae of the next century which, whatever may
be their precise ratio of exchange, were worth but a small fraction of
a silver drachma ?
There are nine instances of copper drachmae among papyri which,
whether dated or not, can safely be attributed to the period before
the great change from a silver to a copper standard took place. These
are (i) part II. xiii (17), dated the thirty-first year of Philadelphus ;
(a) xxvi (7J, dated the thirty-third year of Philadelphus, where in line 7
Wilcken reads the original ra xa^^oi; [bp]paxiJ.[MV Kad]r]KovTa ; (3) xxvi
(6), dated the eighth year of Euergetes, which has xa^^Loi' H-] ; (4)
xxvi (4), dated the eighth year of EuergeteSj where in line 8 I read
XoAkoi) H X ; (5) xliv, written in the reign of Euergetes ; (6) xiv (ic); (7)
xxviii; (8) xxxix (d) ; (9) xxiv {b^. Of these (a), (3), (4), (8), and (9)
are too fragmentary to prove anything. With regard to the rest the
most noticeable fact is that nowhere among them are found the enormous
sums in copper drachmae which are found in the next century, when
e g. the price of an ox is 21,000 drachme (L. P. 58, 11. 4-5) ; and the
house of Nephoris and the twins is valued at lao talents of copper
(L. P. 33, 11. 18-19). In (i) 231% dr. of copper are paid together
with 617I dr. of silver; while in (5) the rent of a farm is 65 dr. of
copper, apparently for a year. These facts alone would make us sus-
pect that xo-^Kov bpaxp-ai at this period are equivalent to the drachmae
in payments -npos x^-^i^ov of the Rev. Pap. For though it may seem
at first sight that xoAkou hpaxp-ai ought to mean in the third century B. c.
what they mean in the second, to a Greek of the third century B. c. the
drachma was essentially a silver coin, and in reality there is much
less difficulty in speaking of a drachma of copper as a silver drachma's
worth in copper than in using it for a ' copper drachma.' The question
In P. P. part I, xxiii the large numbers refer not to copper drachmae, but to ravffia.
APPENDIX in. 197
is however definitely settled by (6), where in lines 3-5 the correct reading
is Ti'kivQovKKOi 01 €^ei\r](poTes e^Kvaai [irXLvdovj M coore as tj]v a-vvTikov\xivr\v
a
ev Tlrokefiaibi l3a(n\X.iKr}v] KaraXvaiv, eKauTrjs M h t, ^uXkov h k. Mr.
Mahaffy, reading the last letter x, was led to suggest that in this passage
600 copper drachmae were equivalent to 10 silver. But the k is certain,
and therefore the price for dragging 30,000 bricks (including the value
of the bricks themselves, cf. i d) was 10 dr. x"^'^"^ for each 10,000.
Now in xii (4) the price of 10,000 bricks is i3 dr., which, as the metal
is not stated, we should expect to be silver drachmae, and in xiv (i b)
the price of 10,000 bricks is 15 dr., xa^'^o^' being erased. The difference
in the prices depends, as Mr. Petrie suggests, on the distance which
they have to be carried. But it is absolutely impossible that the price
of bricks could ever have been 10 copper drachmae per 10,000, if these
copper drachmae are the copper drachmae of the next century ; and if
any doubt can still rest on the identity of xcXkou Spax^ai at this period
with payments TTpos x^'^'^oi', it is removed by (7). That papyrus contains
a long list of names with sums of money opposite to them ; that these
sums are copper drachmae is proved by the totals xa(A.Koi») which occur
e.g. in [1] 2, and the payments are clearly concerned with oil, which is
probably sesame oil since cici is only specified in a few instances.
The whole process of the manufacture and sale of oil is known from
part C of the Rev. Pap., and there can be little doubt as to the cor-
rectness of Mr. Mahaffy's suggestion in P. P. App. p. 5, that this papyrus
is a list of eXaioKairriXoi for the Fayoum together with the sums paid
by them to the contractors, cf. [47] and [48]. Mr. Mahaffy remarked
that all the sums were multiples of 7, but he might have gone a
step further, for they are nearly all multiples of 42. If Mr. Mahaffy's
explanation of this papyrus is correct, the meaning of this number in
the light of the Revenue Papyrus is clear. The retail price of a metretes
of sesame oil and cici was irpos xaA-xov 48 dr., [40], 9, therefore the
ekaioKa-iT-qXoL must have received the oil from the contractors at a re-
duction, cf. [48] 13. And, though the retail price may of course have
altered considerably between the date of the Rev. Pap. and that of
the P. P. xxix, the correspondence between the number which
would be expected and the number which is found is strong enough
igS APPENDIX III.
to make it extremely probable that the 42 drachmae yoXis.ov are the
price of a metretes paid to the contractors by the Ka-n-qKoi, and that
7 drachmae, of which the remaining numbers are multiples, was the
price of 3 choes. In any case it is hardly possible to suppose that
the 43 drachmae \akKov are calculated on a standard different from
the 48 drachmae paid Trpoy xoXmv.
To sum up the results reached so far, while M. Revillout's contention
that in the reigns of the first three Ptolemies there was only one
standard has been vindicated from objections which might be brought
from the Petrie papyri, his theory that copper was at this time merely
money of account, used for the fractions of the drachma, and that
as late as the time of Philopator all the taxes were paid in silver
{Pap. Biling. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. Jan. 1893, p. 138), has been shown to
be erroneous. As far back as the Greek papyri carry us, we find large
payments being made in copper at its full value, even in payments
to the government. Moreover the excessive rarity of all Ptolemaic
silver coins of a smaller denomination than the tetradrachm shows that
payments of sums less than 4 drachmae must habitually have been
made in copper. In order to obtain the ratio between silver and copper
at par, it only remains to discover the normal weight of the obol.
But as on this point M. Revillout and I are not agreed, I postpone the
question for the present, and pass to the consideration of the second
question — under what circumstances was copper at a discount, and what
was the normal rate of the discount at this period ?
The all-important authority for this would have been \1^ 4-5, but
the passage is mutilated and the decisive number is lost. Nevertheless
several conclusions may be drawn from that passage. First the regu-
lation concerns all banks throughout the country, therefore the rate
of discount on the copper in question was the same everywhere.
Secondly, as in [60] 13, the stater and the obol are used as the typical
silver and copper coins. Thirdly, this copper which was at a discount
must have been paid into the banks either as payment of a tax tt^os
XaXKov, or of a tax which ought to have been paid in silver. But as
the copper paid into the banks by the contractors for the oil monopoly
was accepted by the government from them at par, [60] 13-15, it is
very unlikely that, when the government came to reckon with the
contractors for the banks, the bankers had to pay on the copper
APPENDIX III. 199
a discount which the contractors for the oil monopoly had escaped.
Moreover the analogy of the next century, when copper was accepted
at par (xaX/cos ktoj/o/xoj) in the case of certain taxes and at a discount
as payment of taxes which ought to have been paid in silver {yakx-o's
ov aXkayn), makes it practically certain that even in the time of Phila-
delphus copper was accepted at a discount by the banks on behalf
of the government in payment of taxes which ought to have been paid
in silver.
What has been lost through the mutilation of [76] 4, can however to
some extent be recovered from other sources. In App. ii. no. 5 there
are three examples of the conversion of sums paid Trpos xo-^koi' into silver
drachmae. In (a) [2] 7-8 11574 dr. in copper are equivalent to 1043^ in
silver, in (6) 6-7 3429 dr. i obol in copper to 3091 dr. li ob. in silver, and
in {c) 14-15 3791 dn li obols in copper to 3399 dr. 4^ ob. in silver. The
discount on copper is in the first two cases approximately io| per cent.,
in the third 9I per cent. It is noticeable that in the case of these sums
which refer to wine, probably received by the oeconomus as payment
of the aiToiioLpa and sold by him in the open market, cf. [33] 5, [34] 10,
the rate of discount varies slightly, so that the official rate for the banks
did not altogether control the rate of exchange in commercial trans-
actions, although it is not likely that there was ever a considerable
difference between the official and the private rate of discount.
Besides this papyrus there is an instance of the rate of discount
in ostracon 331 of Prof Wilcken's Corpus, which records the payment
of xoC^kod) ets K^-v TT, i. e. ' 80 drachmae of copper at the rate of a6 j obols.'
The ostracon is dated in the twenty-second year of a Ptolemy who for
palaeographical reasons must be one of the earlier kings, and as the
drachmae in question must from the smallness of their number be
calculated on the silver not on the copper standard, it is far more
likely that the ostracon belongs to the reign of Euergetes than to that
of Epiphanes, when copper drachmae usually, perhaps universally,
meant copper drachmae on the copper standard. The meaning of
the 265 obols was in the light of [60] 13 and [76] 4 at once obvious
to Mr. Mahaffy and myself This copper 'at the rate of 26 J obols'
means copper obols of which a6J would be counted as the equivalent
of a stater^ as opposed to the 24 copper obols of the Rev. Pap. accepted
at par. This explanation is completely corroborated by a hitherto
200 APPENDIX III.
unexplained passage in Pap. Zois I line '^'^, in which y^ eis kc^v (or
possibly c, i. e. ^ obol) is prefixed to the sum which is elsewhere in
the papyrus called xa^'^o? 01^ aXXayrj, and these two passages confirm
the view expressed above, that the obol is the typical copper coin
just as the stater is the typical silver coin. According to the ostracon
therefore a6J obols in copper are equivalent to a stater or 34 obols
in silver, and the rate of discount is iif per cent., a little higher than
the rates found in App. ii no. 5.
Ostr. 329, which belongs to the same reign as Ostr. 331, mentions tt/jos
apyvpi{o)v e^rjKovra sc. drachmae. These must be different from 60 dr.
apyvpiov, and probably yaXKov is to be supplied, since xfiXKos irpos apyvpiov
occurs in the next century^ and, as I shall show, means copper accepted
at par.
To sum up the slender evidence available for the rate of discount at
this period, the most remarkable point is the excessive smallness of the
premium on silver. For it is possible that from the 10 per cent., which
seems to have been the normal rate, something ought to be subtracted
for the carriage and other expenses of the heavier metal, cf. L. P. 62 [5]
17, so that the real rate of discount may have been even less than 10 per
cent. In any case it is probable that in many private transactions copper
passed at its full value, and there is no evidence from the papyri that"
copper was in the time of Philadelphus and Euergetes a token coinage,
nor, as I shall show, is there any from the coins. The reign of Soter,
of whose copper coinage there is no literary and hardly any numismatic
evidence, will be discussed later.
§ 3. Documentary Evidence for the period of Transition.
The demotic papyri of this period show, according to M.Revillout, that
Philopator was the first Ptolemy who introduced the copper standard of
120: I, by which 24 copper ' argenteus-outens •" or, to give the demotic
names of the coins tlieir Greek equivalents which have been perfectly
established by M. Revillout,48o copper drachmae, were equal to i%- of a
silver argenteus-outen, or 4 silver drachmae. Silver, he thinks however,
still remained in Philopator's reign the principal standard i^Pap. Biling.
1, c. Dec. 1 89 1, p. 80) for all Egypt, and in the next reign for the Thebaid,
so long as it was governed by the insurgent kings, the discovery of
whom is one of M. Revillout's most valuable contributions to Ptolemaic
APPENDIX III. 20 1
history. But for the rest of Egypt at the beginning of Epiphanes'
reign, and for the Thebaid when it was reconquered at the end of his
reign, the copper standard implying payment in copper became uni-
versal in private transactions and appears even in payments to the
government.
Before discussing the demotic papyri of this period, I will consider
the Greek. Two alone can be certainly assigned to the reign of Philo-
pator, P. P. xlvii (see Wilck. G. G. A., Jan. 1895) in which the drachmae
are silver, and the bilingual papyrus in the British Museum commented
on (1. c.) at great length by M. Revillout. M. Revillout claims that the
Greek docket of this papyrus confirms his previous theory about the
standard at this period, and in order to explain certain ' anomalies ' in
it builds up what is certainly a most elaborate and ingenious theory.
Unfortunately, in all the points essential for the question of the coinage,
M. Revillout has misread the papyrus, of which the correct transcription
with an autotype is given by the Palaeographical Society, series ii, 143.
The papyrus has not oktm 6io/3oAovs, i.e. 8 diobols, but OKrto hvo^oKovs
i. e. 8 (drachmae) a obols, the sign for drachma being omitted as so often
happens on the ostraca ; not ^(aXK{ov) r) a[\\ayr]s) rea-aapas ol3o\ovs, but
XaXKiotar reaaapai ojBoXov i.e. 'for x.^'^Kiaia 4 drachmae I obol.' If it
is worth while to hazard conjectures about an unknown word like x*^^-
Kiaiav, possibly it refers to the discount on copper, though on what sum
is not clear, since the sum for x^^^taia is half the 8 dr. a obols, which
was the tax of xo levied on the sale of the farm in question. But in the(
absence of any parallel passage it is useless to found an argument upon it.
Thirdly, there is P. P. xxxii (i), dated in the eighth year of a Ptolemy
who on palaeographical grounds was almost certainly neither Phila-
delphus nor Euergetes, and who, as there is no reason for assigning any
papyrus in the Petrie collection to the reign of Philometor, was therefore
Philopator or Epiphanes, with a slight balance of probability, palaeo-
graphically, for Epiphanes. The question is of some importance since
the copper drachmae mentioned in the papyrus are unquestionably on
the copper standard, but cannot be decided unless it should appear that
the copper drachmae on the copper standard were not instituted before
Epiphanes' reign. Fourthly, there is P. P. xxvii. 5, undated, but written
in a very peculiar hand quite different from the ordinary hands of the
third century. The papyrus mentions enormous sums in x^'^'^os la-o-
Dd
202 APPENDIX III.
vojjLos and x'^^'^o? on aAXayrj which are unquestionably copper drachmae on
the copper standard, and it is therefore on every ground to be assigned
to the end of the third century or the beginning of the second. Fifth,
and most important of all, is P. P. xlvi, dated the second and fourth
years of Epiphanes, where is found the mention of 2, talents and of
I talent 516^- dr. in x«^fos irpoy a{pyvpiov), for so Prof. Wilcken rightly
explains the abbreviation comparing the known use of x.aXKos Trpos
apyvpiov elsewhere. It is quite certain that these sums were calculated
on the copper standard ; and this will be a convenient place for con-
sidering the meaning of the three difficult phrases \akKos LcrovoiJ.o9, ov
aWayr] and Trpos apyvpiov. The fourth technical term, x^-Xkos eiy k^v,
has already been explained.
It is to Prof Lumbroso that the credit of elucidating the first two
terms is due, see Rec. pp. 43-6. He there suggests that the distinction
between them is purely financial and has nothing to do with two kinds
of coinage, x"-^!^"^ urovojios is copper paid in the case of taxes in which
payment was required in copper and therefore no discount was charged,
while x.a\KOi ov aWayt], copper on which there was a discount, is copper
paid in the case of taxes which ought to have been paid in silver. This
perfectly explains the passage in L. P. 62 [5] 16-21, and is confirmed
by the interchange of x^-^^o^ ou aWayq with xakKos as k^v, since the
one explanation suits both terms. M. Revillout however, when he
was issuing his first edition of the Lettres, was not content with this
view (see Rev. eg. iii. T17). He there suggests that xa^^os la-ovopios is
the new copper coinage of Philopator and Epiphanes at the ratio of
120: I, while xaA.Koy oi; akXayrj was the pre-existing copper of Phila-
delphus and Euergetes, which as it was not on a ratio of 120 : i was at
a discount. That I am not misrepresenting M. Revillout's meaning is
shown by the fact that this view of xa^^os to-owjuos as a coin is men-
tioned as his by Mr. Head in his Historia Nummorum, p. 7 1 3 note, and
by Mr. Mahaffy in P. P. part ii. Introd. p. la. This explanation suits
excellently, and indeed would, if correct, be a strong argument for the
position which M. Revillout there and elsewhere, as in Pap. Biling. I.e.
Dec. 1891, p. 96, takes up, that a drachma xa^'^ov i(Tovo\t.ov, or copper
drachma weighing the same as a silver drachma of which it was worth
rlu) was the invention of Philopator ; but it is quite incompatible with the
position which he adopts in his discussion of the weights of the copper
APPENDIX III. 203
coins, when he speaks of la proportion pr^existante ' of 120 to 1 set up
by Philopator, and makes the identity of weight and value between the
obol on the silver standard and the 20 drachmae on the copper standard
the whole basis of his system. The confusion is made worse by the fact
that in his explanation of laovojios in Pap. Biling. I.e. Jan. 1892 he
returned to the view expressed by Prof. Lumbroso and yet speaks of
the ' nouvelle isonomie ' in the time of Philopator. The fact is that
M. Revillout has tried to stand alternately upon two contradictory pro-
positions. Either copper at 120 : i was instituted by Philopator, or it
was not. If it was (as M. Revillout says in Rev. ^g. iii. 117 and Pap.
Biling. 1. c. p. 96), and the previously existing obols of Philadelphus did
not weigh the same as the new 20 drachmae pieces of Philopator, then
M. Revillout has successfully demolished his own theory of the weights
and the identity of the obol with the 20 drachma piece, which is the basis
of his theory of t2o to i as the ratio between both the value of a silver
and a copper drachma, and the weight of 120 copper drachmae and
one silver drachma. On the other hand if M. Revillout elects to stand
by his weights, he must, to be consistent, renounce his first explanation
of iaovofj.os as having anything to do with coins, and cease therefore
to speak of ' cuivre isonome ' as if it were a special coinage at all.
Which horn of the dilemma M. Revillout is prepared to choose I do not
know, for in his recent re-issue of the Lettres he speaks of laovoixos as
he spoke of it in the first edition of the Lettres when, to judge by his
article which appeared contemporaneously in the Rev. eg., he believed
his own explanation of that term. But as that explanation was fatal to
his theory of the coinage and is on his own showing contradicted by
the coins, I shall assume that he now adopts Prof Lumbroso's explana-
tion which is less disastrous to him, and for the present content myself
with pointing out that the only support from the papyri which might be
given to his theory that the copper drachma and silver drachma after
Philopator's time weighed the same, must be withdrawn. How far the
theory will stand without this support will be discussed later.
It is noticeable that laovonos and ov aWayri have not yet been
found with drachmae on the silver standard, while x^^'^os f's "^v and
perhaps x^^kos irpos apyvpiov are found applied to copper drachmae on
both standards. Just as yakKos eis ki^v seems to be the forerunner of
XaAxoy on aWayr], which usually, though not always, as the papyrus of
Dd3
204 APPENDIX III.
Zois shows, superseded it, so xaXxos Trpos- apyvpwv seems to be the fore-
runner of xoAkcs la-ovoiJLos, which after the adoption of the copper standard
became the commoner term. First a term is required in the period of
the silver standard to be contrasted with ^o'^'^of eiy k<^v and to mean
copper which was accepted at par. Secondly the literal meaning of xaA.Kos
TTpos apyvpiov, 'copper against silver' (cf. [60] 13 ■nwXovp.iv irpos xo-^i^ov),
suits the view that it is identical with x«^'^oy i, or so
low as 30 : I, as was once proposed, and it is a strong though hardly-
conclusive argument against the theory of Letronne that the exchange
ratio was 60 : i.
But though the documentary evidence on which these distinguished
scholars based the theory of 120 : i is very far from being conclusive,
their verdict is not therefore lightly to be set aside. Their general
conclusion, which is on the whole supported by recent discoveries,
is in favour of 120 : i as the exchange ratio between silver and copper
drachmae, on the ground that it suits the comparative prices better than
any other theory, and if that ratio can by the numismatic evidence be
made practically certain or even only probable, no difficulty is likely
to be raised on account of the papyri.
For the rate of discount on copper at this period the evidence consists
of, first, the Zois papyri of Philometor's reign in which y^oKKos eis ktv is
interchanged with ^aXKos ov aXXayrj, secondly, L. P. 62 [5] 17, probably
belonging to the later part of the second century B. c, in which in the
case of cavaL itpos xo-^^o" K^ovoixov (vid. sup.), just as in the case of the
oil-monopoly during the third century, copper was accepted at par, but
the discount on copper paid in the case of irpos apyvpiov utvai, or (avai
which ought to be paid in silver, is 10 dr. aj obols for every mina ; in
other words no dr. 2\ in copper were worth 100 in silver. The rate
therefore was approximately 10 per cent, at this period, as it had been in
the third century. The explanation of this fact which, since silver was
much scarcer in the second century, is at first sight remarkable is
afforded by the silver coins. In a country like Egypt with a double
currency, silver and copper, exchanging at practically the market value,
— for it is incredible that Philadelphus would have permitted large
payments of taxes in copper at its nominal value unless that nominal
value approximately represented the real value of copper — there were,
when silver tended, as it did soon after Philadelphus' time, to become
scarce, three alternatives before the Ptolemies. Either they might
alter the rate of exchange between silver and copper, or they might
diminish the weight of the silver coins to meet the appreciation of silver,
or they might meet it by debasing the silver coinage. That the
Ptolemies did not adopt the first course, is shown by the fact that
copper still in the second century exchanged at the same rate, either
APPENDIX III. 215
at par or at a small discount, with silver, and that there is no alteration
of normal weights in the copper coins. Possibly their policy in not
adopting that course was sound ; for the constant alterations of the rate
of exchange, which would have been necessary to keep the two metals at
their market value, might have been more fatal to all business transactions
than either of the other two courses. Nor did they choose, as the
Rhodians under similar circumstances chose, to diminish the weight
of the silver coins, keeping the metal pure ; but, as the silver of the
later Ptolemies shows, they preferred to debase their silver, probably
to an extent which, while nominally keeping the same rate of exchange
as before, would alter the real ratio between silver and copper to the
level of the ratio of the two metals in the open market. Therefore,
any particular weight of copper coins nominally continued in the second
century to exchange against the same amount of silver as that against
which it had exchanged in the third century. But the real silver
in the ' silver ' coins of the later Ptolemies continued to diminish,
until by the reign of Auletes the metal had become for the most part
alloy.
To sum up the results which have been reached by the aid of
the documentary evidence, the dividing line in the history of Ptolemaic
coinage is the adoption of the copper standard at the very beginning of
Epiphanes' reign, perhaps at the end of Philopator's, side by side with
the silver standard which it never altogether superseded. In fact the
debased silver of the later Ptolemies is so common that it must have
played a much larger part than can be concluded from the papyri, and
it niay well be doubted not only how far the recorded payments on the
silver standard in the third century were actually made in silver, but
also how far the recorded payments in copper drachmae during the
second were actually made in copper. In many respects however the
change to a copper standard seems to have made little difference. As
far back as Philadelphus' reign copper was used in the payment of large
sums in official as well as in private transactions, sometimes at par,
sometimes at a discount of about 10 per cent. In the second century,
as the history of the airo/xotpa proves (see [37] 19 note), payments were
made more frequently in copper, but the rate of discount was apparently
still about the same and there is nothing to show that the rate of
exchange had altered.
2i6 APPENDIX III.
Of the three questions propounded at the beginning of this essay, the
papyri and ostraca have given an answer to the second, and this answer
has been verified by the silver coins ; with regard to the first, the normal
ratio between silver and copper drachmae in the third century B.C. is
known, and there is a certain presumption, though not yet a strong one,
in favour of the exchange ratio of 1 30 : i between silver and copper
drachmae in the second century. The third question has necessarily
been left unsolved, except in so far that there is no longer any reason for
separating the two parts of it, since the large payments of copper made
to the government show that the ratio between silver and copper as
metals must have closely approximated to their ratio as coins.
§ 5- The evidence of the copper coins.
The copper coins are discussed by M. Revillout in Lettres, pp. iia-
134, where he makes a classification and table of weights, both of which
are, as I shall show, disfigured by the most astonishing blunders. These
pages are reprinted practically without alteration from his articles in the
Rev. ^gypt., though the subject had in the meantime been revolutionized
by the appearance of Mr. Poole's Catalogue of Ptolemaic coins in the
British Museum.
As I have already said, it is necessary to have some theory of the
rate of exchange between silver and copper drachmae before we attempt
to argue from the weights. If it were possible to say at once that any
particular coin was the copper obol, since the normal rate of exchange
in the third century between drachmae paid in silver and drachmae
paid in copper was par, it would be equally possible to obtain the
ultimate ratio between an equal weight of silver and copper in the third
century, and the knowledge of this would of course be of great service in
deciding both the ratio of exchange and the ultimate ratio between silver
and copper in the second century. But it is impossible to tell so easily
what coin the copper obol was. On the other hand, if it can be dis-
covered with how many copper drachmae the obol was identical, and
how much the copper drachma weighed, the question of the ultimate
ratio can be solved for both centuries at once. It is therefore necessary
in order to reach the ultimate ratio between silver and copper even in
APPENDIX III. 217
the third century, to overcome the old difficulty of the rate of exchange
between silver and copper drachmae in the second, and if that can be
done, it will also be possible to explain the ultimate ratio in the second
century B. c.
But at this point there are some general considerations to be taken
into account. First, to quote Mr. Poole (Catal. Intr. p. xiii), ' No series
of coins struck by the successors of Alexander is more difficult to class
than that of the Ptolemies.' And if the difficulty of classifying the gold
and silver coins is great, that of classifying the copper is far greater
owing to the increased rarity of dated copper coins, the uncertainty
attaching to the name of each denomination, and the frequent devia-
tions, whatever theory be adopted, from the normal standard of weights.
The time is never likely to come when every issue of copper coins can
be assigned to its correct reign, or when at any rate the smaller copper
coins can be assigned with certainty to their correct denominations.
Under these circumstances, since finality is unattainable, the best theory
will be that to which there are fewest objections.
Secondly, since the only numismatist of the first rank who has
undertaken to weigh and systematize the copper coins is Mr. Poole, it
is absolutely necessary for any one who is not a numismatist to base
his explanations upon the facts as Mr. Poole records them, nor are
conclusions likely to be of much value, if they are irreconcilable with
Mr. Poole's.
If the classification of the coinage according to weights is a task of
extreme difficulty, the copper coinage of the Ptolemies has nevertheless
two great advantages. It was at any rate from the time of Philadelphus,
as I have pointed out, in no sense a token coinage. The smallness of
the discount and the fact that the government even in the time when
silver was plentiful sometimes accepted copper at par are conclusive
evidence that the nominal ratio of copper to silver approximately
coincided with the market ratio of the two metals. It would obviously
be a vain task to attempt from a consideration of the weight and
exchange value of a shilling to deduce the ratio of value between silver
and gold as metals at the present day. But with the coinage of the
Ptolemies it is certain that the ultimate ratio is somehow expressed by
the coins if they can be looked at in the right way ; and there is no
question of searching after a chimera. Secondly, a general consideration
Ff
2i8 APPENDIX III.
of the copper coins without adopting any particular theory of the normal
standard shows, as Mr. Poole remarks, that the change from the silver to
a copper standard in the reign of Epiphanes does not seem to have been
accompanied by an alteration of the normal standard of weights. The
names of the different denominations altered, but the normal weights
did not. There are great irregularities after the reign of Epiphanes as
there were before, but they are confined within the same limits, and
therefore an explanation of the normal weights and the names of the
denominations for one period will equally serve as an explanation for
the other. At the same time the normal weights primarily represent
the obol and its subdivisions to which the copper drachmae of the later
period were equated, and a theory of the normal weights can only be
accepted if it explains the origin of the subdivisions of the obol ; on the
other hand the ratio of exchange adopted in the reign of Epiphanes is
likely to have been such that the new copper drachmae would accommo-
date themselves to the fractions of the obol.
With regard to the copper obol, though nothing can be deduced
from its name concerning its weight, there are two important points to
be considered. The fact that the obol is spoken of as the typical copper
coin, and still more the absence of any silver coin, at any rate after the
reign of Soter, which represented an obol, make it certain that one
denomination of the coins in Mr. Poole's table is the obol of which the
lower denominations are subdivisions. Secondly, it is known that the
Greek subdivisions of the obol in Egypt were chalci or eighths, as at
Athens, cf. Pap. Biling. 1. c. line 9, IixoKkov, &c. Therefore any satis-
factory theory of the normal weights of the obol must show that the
coin which is assumed to be the obol, was divided into eighths at any
rate approximately ; and similarly no theory of the equivalence of
the obol in copper drachmae can be accepted, if the fractions which
result are unintelligible. The exchange ratio must be such that the
coins representing the fractions of the obol can be converted conveniently
into copper drachmae.
Next, as to the names of the copper coins in the second century ; in
Greek they are called drachmae, in demotic ' argentei,' subdivided into
5 shekels and 10 kati or didrachms, the kati being also ^V of the
uten, with which M. Revillout naturally identifies the argenteus, speaking
frequently of the ' argenteus-outen.' The names therefore of the copper
APPENDIX III. 219
coins are the same as the names of the silver coins, and as the names
' drachma ' and ' kati ' connote weights, there is good reason for assuming
that the coins which approximately weighed a drachma or a kati were
the copper drachmae and the copper kati.
But what were the weights connoted by the terms 'drachma' and
' kati ' in Egypt ? For this it is necessary to consider the history of the
silver coinage about which there is no doubt. Soter at first issued silver
on the Attic standard, according to which the drachma weighed 67-5
grains, then adopted the Rhodian with a normal drachma of 60 grains,
and finally adopted the Phoenician with a normal drachma of ^6 grains,
which standard was maintained by all his successors. Leaving the Rhodian
drachma which is intermediate out of account, the approximate limits at
each end are 67-5 and ^6 as the weight of the copper drachma. Turning
to the demotic, in so far as a kati is the translation of a Greek didrachm,
it gives no new information, but it must be remembered that being the
tenth of an ' argenteus-outen,' and the uten being an ancient Egyptian
weight of very nearly 1400 grains, the kati also had a definite weight of
its own, 140 grains, which, as it was equated to the didrachm, would give
a copper drachma of 70 grains. On the other hand, it will be objected,
have I any right to invent a fictitious copper drachma of which there is
no instance in Greek ? Is not this to explain the Greek coinage in the
light of the demotic, a course which I have already frequently con-
demned ? My answer is that in the first place 67-5 was but the approxi-
mate limit, and that no less an authority than Mr. Poole (Catal. Intr.
p. xci) remarks that the difference between the Attic and the Egyptian
standard ' is too small to be of consequence in the comparison (of the
coins), considering the irregularity with which the copper money was
struck.' Any series of coins which points to a normal weight of 67-5
can also be explained by a normal weight of 70. Therefore the Attic
and Egyptian standards are for the present purpose identical, and the
' fictitious drachma ' is nothing else than the Attic.
But still it may be objected that, as the Greek and the Egyptian
standards practically coincided, it was the Egyptian system which was
equated to the Greek, not vice versa, and that in speaking of the normal
weights I ought to keep to the Greek. Here however a distinction must
be drawn. There is all the difference in the world between explaining
technical phrases or names of coins by the demotic instead of by the
F f a
220 APPENDIX III.
Greek, and on the other hand arguing that the copper coins made in
Greek mints by Greeks and with Greek names may nevertheless have
been issued on an Egyptian standard to which the Greek was equated.
That it would be as inconsistent as it would be absurd to explain the
silver coins on any theory of an Egyptian standard, is obvious, for
the silver coins were clearly issued on Greek standards, to which the
Egyptian standard was equated. But though a conquering race
naturally imposes its own silver standard on the conquered, there are
numerous cases, as in South Italy and Sicily, in which the conquerors
have adopted the copper standard of the conquered and equated it with
their own money. Moreover the elaborate system of copper coinage
of the Ptolemies is peculiar to Egypt and quite foreign to the rest
of the Hellenistic world, while on the other hand copper had long been
used in Egypt as a standard of value. In fact, if the question had to
be decided only on a priori grounds, the balance of probability would
be rather in favour of an Egyptian origin. But it is sufficient for
my present purpose to have vindicated the consistency of holding that
besides the kati which are equivalents of Greek weights, account must
be taken of the true Egyptian weight of the kati, although, as I have
said, for practical purposes a coin of 70 grains is not to be dis-
tinguished from the Attic drachma.
How does this bear on the ratio of exchange between silver and
copper drachmae ? In the first place, if it is granted that the copper
drachma weighs approximately the same as the Phoenician or the
Attic drachma, it can be shown that any ratio of exchange higher
than 120:1 is unsatisfactory if not impossible; e.g. if it were 180 to
1, 30 copper drachmae would be equal to the obol ; but thirty times
the weight even of the Phoenician drachma would result in a coin
much heavier than any quoted in Mr. Poole's table, and, as has been
shown, the obol is represented somewhere in the extant copper coins ;
therefore this ratio will not do. In fact, as the heaviest copper coin
is a little over 1400 grains, any ratio of exchange over 150 is quite
impossible on the same grounds. This ratio however, which assigns
25 copper drachmae to the obol, may be dismissed on the ground that
it involves a very inconvenient number, 3J copper drachmae for the
chalcus, which will cause infinite confusion. But it is unnecessary to
go through all the unsatisfactory ratios in detail. The number of
APPENDIX III. 221
copper drachmae in an obol cannot exceed twenty-four ; on the other
hand it cannot be less than ten, which would give a ratio of sixty,
for under any circumstances a ratio below 60 : i is too low to account
for the high figures in copper drachmae in the papyri ; twenty-four
and ten are therefore the two possible extremes. Of the intermediate
numbers all the odd ones may be struck out, as they would lead at
once to impossible fractions in copper drachmae as the equivalents of
chalci, nor will twenty-two, eighteen, or fourteen suit for the same
reason. There remain twenty-four, twenty, sixteen, twelve, and ten.
I have proceeded so far on general grounds without assuming even
the normal weights of any particular coins, much less the relation of
any one supposed denomination to any other, but merely showing that
a number of ratios failed at the outset to fulfil the requirements which
any satisfactory solution must have fulfilled, before it is worth while
to apply the consequences of the ratio to the coins themselves ; but
it is hardly necessary to point out that a theory which starts with
difficulties at the outset, cannot possibly evercome the obstacles which
any theory, however simple or easy at the beginning, is bound eventually
to encounter. In order to reduce the possible ratios of exchange on
numismatical grounds to a still smaller number, it would be necessary
to come to an understanding, if not about the supposed approximate
normal weights, at any rate about the relation which a higher series
bears to a lower one. But without prejudging the answers to these
questions, there is one fact which is certain about the subdivisions of
the Ptolemaic coins, and indeed it is the explanation of it which is
the key to the whole problem.
Whatever theory be adopted as to the number of copper drachmae
in an obol, and whatever coin be therefore selected as the obol, the
subdivisions of it are not only in the series i, i, i, which fractions it
is absolutely necessary to find in the coins, as the obol is known to
have been divided into these fractions. Intermediate between these
fractions comes another series, and it is chiefly by its answer to the
questions, first what was this series both in terms of fractions of the
obol and of copper drachmae, and secondly, why was there this second
series, that a theory of Ptolemaic coinage stands or falls. On Mr.
Poole's theory that the normal weight of the highest copper coins was
20 Attic drachmae, he obtains as subdivisions 10, 8, 5, 4, a|, a, i^, i,
223 APPENDIX III.
(I leave out of account the smaller denominations which cannot be fixed
independently of the larger), or, regarded as fractions of unity, \, |, \, \,
8j tV) itj ■aV- It is obvious that by identifying 20 Attic drachmae with
the copper obol, which gives an exchange ratio of i : 130, the fractions
of the obol which are wanted will be obtained, and equally, if 10 Attic
drachmae be identified with the obol ; for the difference between the
denomination of the small coin, which Mr. Poole supposes to be i^,
i. e 4®^, and the denomination of i\, i.e. on a theory of 60:1, \ obol,
is so trifling that it can be neglected. But there will also be a series
I) T! Toi 2V) which, though they cannot be finally proved until the
explanation of them is found, are at any rate convenient fractions of
the obol and can at once be converted into copper drachmae without
any difficulty. But these advantages, which are shared equally by the
exchange ratio of 120 : 1 or 60 : i, the copper drachma being in both cases
on the Attic standard, are not obtained by any of the ratios, according
to which 24, 16, or 12 copper drachmae are equal to the obol, whatever
normal weight of the copper drachma be assumed within the limits
of 70-56 grains mentioned above. These three ratios of exchange all
lead to inconvenient fractions both as divisions of the obol and as
copper drachmae. Practically the question is ultimately narrowed
down to the choice between 120:1 and 60:1. Further than that the
evidence of the Ptolemaic coins cannot go, for if the coins can be
explained on the theory of the one ratio, they can equally well be
explained by the other, since the normal weights would remain the
same, and the only difference would be that the denominations of the
various fractions would on the theory of 60 : i be twice what they are
on the theory of 120:1. But the theory of 120:1 is, Mr, Gardner
tells me, on general grounds of numismatics, preferable to the other
theory, because the exchange ratio of 120 : 1 leads, if the copper drachma
is on the Attic standard, as Mr. Poole supposes, and his classification
of the coinage is satisfactory, to a ratio of 143! : i between the normal
weights of an equivalent amount of silver and copper, and even on
M. Revillout's theory of the Phoenician standard of the copper coinage
to a ratio of 120 : i, and the analogy of other countries, e.g. Sicily and
Rome, is in favour of a ratio over 100 in preference to one below.
Like the papyri therefore the coins on the whole point to the
exchange ratio of 120 : i, and as they practically narrow the question
APPENDIX III. 223
down to a ratio of 120 or 60, while the former ratio suits the prices
found in the papyri much the better of the two, there is not much
doubt that the exchange ratio is 130 : i ; and if so the continuation of
the demotic formula 24 = 3% in the period when obols had given
way to pieces of 20 copper drachmae or 'argenteus-outens' is easily
explained.
That all these arguments for the exchange ratio of 120:1 leave
much to be desired is recognized by no one more fully than myself;
but it would be worse than useless to blind oneself to the fact that
conclusive evidence for that ratio does not yet exist, though the question
will probably some day be solved by an instance of the conversion
of copper drachmae in the second century B. c. intp silver, similar to
the instances in App. ii (5) for the third.
It has hitherto been argued that the exchange ratio of 120:1,
according to which the obol was equivalent to 20 copper drachmae
on the Attic standard, produces a satisfactory solution for the initial
difficulties which were fatal to the other ratios. But in order to place
on an approximately firm basis the ratio of exchange, together with
the ratio of weights between an equivalent amount of silver and copper,
which follows from the other ratio provided that the weight of a copper
drachma be discoverable, it is necessary both to show that, on the
assumption that the ratio of exchange was 120:1 and the normal
weight of the drachma was the Attic, the coins can be classified into
suitable subdivisions both of the obol and of 20 copper drachmae, and
to provide an explanation for the double series of fractions. Here if
I wished I could stop, and, ignoring the table of weights proposed by
M. Revillout, whose classification and theory of normal weights are
quite different from Mr. Poole's, settle the questions at issue by an
appeal to the authority of the first numismatist on the subject. Seeing
that Mr. Poole has adopted the theory that the normal weights of
the copper coins were on the Attic standard, and that the normal
weight of the largest copper coins was 20 drachmae, which are on
the theory of an exchange ratio of 120:1 the obol, it will naturally
be asked, 'What is the use of going further? Is not Mr. Poole's verdict
sufficient ? and even if it is not, how can you who are not a numismatist
expect to strengthen it?' The fact that Mr. Poole, having for a short
time accepted M. Revillout's theory of the Phoenician standard of the
224 APPENDIX III.
weights, deliberately rejected it in favour of another explanation before
publishing his Catalogue is a sufficiently strong condemnation of
M. Revillout's theory, and had M. Revillout in his recent re-issue of
the Lettres renounced his classification, there would have been no
necessity for my discussing a superseded system. But as M. Revillout,
who has committed in his classification, as I shall show, blunders which
would have been incredible if he had not made them, has made no
alterations in his theory of the weights, and dismisses the condemnation
of his theory by the first authority on the subject with the remark,
' Maintenant M. Poole en est revenu a son ancienne erreur qu'il a encore
essaye de defendre dans son catalogue,' it is necessary to put an end
to possible misconceptions, and to show on the one hand how and
why Mr. Poole's conclusions based on recorded facts solve the numerous
difficulties, and on the other how and why the generalizations of
M. Revillout break down. I therefore proceed to a more or less
detailed examination of M. Revillout's theory and that of Mr. Poole,
into which I wish, though with considerable hesitation, to introduce
a few unimportant modifications ; and will only preface my remarks
by repeating that until a greater authority on Ptolemaic coins than
Mr. Poole shall arise, the question has been long ago settled, at any rate
for those who are not numismatists, and that if I have to spend my
readers' time in criticizing the revival of an obsolete theory, it is not
I who am to blame.
§ 6. M. Revillout's theory of the Phoenician standard of the
copper coinage.
M. Revillout, starting with the exchange ratio of 120 : i, supposes
that the 20 copper drachmae, or a copper ' argenteus-outen,' or an
obol on the silver standard, weighed the same as 20 silver drachmae
on the Phoenician standard which was in use for gold and silver
from the end of Soter's reign onwards.
Having obtained the weights of a large number of copper coins,
he arranges them according to the following table of 'principales series,'
in which, as the differences between the coins are clearer when the
weights are expressed in grains than when expressed in grammes and
in Mr. Poole's table the weights are given in grains, I have converted
APPENDIX III.
225
M. Revillout's weights into their nearest English equivalents. It may
first be stated that M. Revillout takes 207-233 grs. as the average
weight of the actual silver tetradrachms, but it is the higher extreme
which is the normal weight, according to Mr. Poole.
Denomination
Denomination in
Actual weight.
Supposed highest
in silver.
copper dr.
normal weight.
i^ obol
30
1580 grains
1668 grains
\\ obol
25
1280-1390
1390
obol
20
1032-11 12
1112
iobol
15
774-834
834
f obol
(I2i)
635-695
695
\ obol
ID
516-556
556
(1 obol)
8
414-445
445
1 obol
(7i)
387-417
417
\ obol
5
358-278
278
(1 obol)
4
207-223
223
g obol
(2«
129-139
139
(iV obol)
2
104-111
III
iV obol
(a)
64-70
70
{h obol)
I
52-56
56
(iV obol)
1
2
26-28
38
(sV obol)
1
4
13-14
14
The advantages of this classification, provided that it represents the
facts, are obvious. In the first place it will be observed that the actual
weights of all the coins have an obliging method of stopping short at
the precise point where, on M. Revillout's theory of their highest normal
weights, they ought to stop. Secondly, the symmetry of the classifica-
tion is perfect. On the one hand the coins representing fractions of the
obol which are enclosed in brackets occur only in the period after
copper drachmae were instituted, and those representing copper drachmae
enclosed in brackets occur only before the period of copper drachmae.
The only fractions of the obol are therefore the coins divided according
to eighths or chalci, the ordinary Greek fractions of the obol, and
the subdivisions of the 20 drachmae piece give only round numbers.
There are no fractions which ought to be there and are not, still less
any that ought not to be there but are. Could there be a more con-
vincing proof of M. Revillout's theory that until the reign of Philopator
226 APPENDIX III.
copper was ' only for the Greeks,' and that the coins represent only the
obol and its normal fractions, and on the other hand that the copper
drachmae, implying the extensive use of copper, were the invention of
Philopator ?
But what are the facts ? On this point M. Revillout does not afford
any help. The only approach towards a fact in his discussion of the
weights [Lettres, pp. 113—117) is the statement that an indefinite number
of coins weigh \o% grammes, unless it be a quotation from Mommsen
about the weight of coin mentioned by Finder. In all the other cases
he gives generalizations about the ' limits ' within which the coins fell ;
sometimes he states how many coins fell within those ' limits,' though
generally he does not do even that. But on the actual weights of actual
coins, from which alone his theory could be tested; he is silent. Nothing
is said of their condition, a knowledge of which is the first essential
before any reliance can be placed on their weights ; nothing of their
provenance, though, as Mr. Poole shows, the copper coinage of the
Cyrenaica and Cyprus had distinct features of its own, which differentiate
it from the coinage of Egypt and Phoenicia and make it at least
questionable how far the weights of coins from the Cyrenaica and
Cyprus can afford a solution of Egyptian coinage ; and with regard
to the dates he gives only the crude division between coins belonging
to the period before Philopator and coins belonging to the period after.
Lastly, M. Revillout's theory is confessedly incomplete, for he gives us
only generalizations about ' les principales series' {Lettres, p. 113).
His generalizations must therefore be tested by the recorded weights
of the coins as they are found in Mr. Poole's table. Here of course
reference is always made to the particular coins, whether the weight
given represents the average of a particular number, or whether it is
based on single coins. The coins whose weights are given were selected
on account of their excellent condition (Catal. Introd., p. xci), and every
available information about their dates and provenances is placed
before the reader. Lastly, Mr. Poole gives not only the principal series
but the exceptional weights which he finds, however difficult they may
be to reconcile with the classification which he proposes. And if it
be objected that this contrast is unfair to M. Revillout and that it
is unreasonable to expect a precise classification from any one who
is not a trained numismatist, my answer is that M. Revillout, by the
APPENDIX III. 227
republication of his classification unaltered in spite of Mr. Poole's
Catalogue, has still chosen to appeal in support of his theory to the
coins, and to the coins he must go.
On comparing the facts recorded by Mr. Poole with the general-
izations of M. Revillout four inconsistencies attract attention: (i) that
the coins which, according to M. Revillout, not only ought to occur
but do occur only in the first period, nevertheless occur in the second,
and vice versa ; (a) that some series of coins which M. Revillout
includes in his ' principales series ' do not occur in Mr. Poole's table
at all ; (3) that other coins which are extremely common do not occur
in M. Revillout's table ; (4) that the actual coins by no means stop
short at the exact point where, on M. Revillout's theory, their normal
weights stop short. I will first take the chief instances of each incon-
sistency and then discuss their combined effect upon M. Revillout's
theory.
The 1 5 obol of M. Revillout does not occur in Mr. Poole's table.
How many examples M. Revillout had before him he does not say, but
the coin must be extremely rare, since it is not represented in the
collection of the British Museum. The actual weights of the ij obol
are, according to M. Revillout, 1 280-1390. There are however coins
of 1445 and 141 3, the first being the average weight of seven Egyptian
coins assigned by Mr. Poole to Ptolemy Philadelphus. M. Revillout's
f obol does not appear in the British Museum collection, the only coin
approaching it being a Phoenician coin of 752 grains belonging to
Euergetes I ; but it is very difficult to suppose that this is an example of
a series whose normal weight rises to 834 grains. The | obol is not, as
M. Revillout supposes, confined to the first three Ptolemies. Egyptian
coins of 684 and 6^6 grains occur in the reigns of Epiphanes and
Philometor. Therefore, on M. Revillout's theory of its denomination
in silver, it must have then been equivalent to 12^ copper drachmae.
Next, the coin whose actual weight, according to M. Revillout, is
414-445 grains and denomination 8 copper drachmae is not found in
Mr. Poole's table, any more than his supposed coin of 387-417 or f obol.
On the other hand, there is an Egyptian coin belonging to Philopator
which weighs 486, and there is a very large series of coins of somewhat
varying weights (325, 368, 333, 323, 330, 316, 354, 316, 354, 370),
enjoying the sole distinction in Mr. Poole's list of being assigned to
Gga
228 APPENDIX III.
every reign from Soter I to Soter II, not one of which is found in
M. Revillout's list. M. Revillout's brilliant imagination has at this
point soared so completely out of the region of facts that it is difficult
to bring him back to earth at all.
First as to the supposed coins representing 8 copper drachmae and
I obol; even admitting their existence, it will be noticed that their actual
weights, according to M. Revillout, overlap each other, and as numerous
examples show that M. Revillout's assignment of certain coins to the
period before Philopator and certain coins to the period after is quite
invalid, he has clearly made two series out of one. M. Revillout may
adopt whichever denomination suits him best ; both he cannot have.
But it is worth while to point out that the one denomination will give
him an inconvenient fraction of the obol, the other an inconvenient
fraction of the copper drachma, and that whichever denomination he
adopts the weights of the other one will be a strong argument against
his theory of the normal weight of the denomination which he has
adopted being correct ; and that if his theory of the normal weights will
not suit the coins, it is not the coins which can be ignored. Secondly,
to extricate M. Revillout from the inevitable consequences of his remark-
able blunder in omitting from his list of ' principales series ' the very
commonest series of Ptolemaic coins is not my affair. Nevertheless, the
least havoc is wrought in his system by supposing — what is from the
weights the most probable solution — that this series which he has
omitted represents a normal weight which is half of that series which
on M. Revillout's theoiy is f obol. The omitted series then is
fV obol or 6i copper drachmae. That both these fractions are highly
unsatisfactory, and in fact unintelligible, is of course obvious, but some
denomination has to be found for these coins between the denominations
which on M. Revillout's theory are | obol and \ obol, and I have been
unable to find any better explanation than that which I have suggested.
M. Revillout's \ obol may perhaps pass, although the coins do not
suit it by any means so much as from his statement of their actual weight
would be supposed, as the majority of those coins which can be
assigned to this denomination have lower weights than 258 grains. The
next two denominations present insuperable difficulties. The coins
whose actual weight is from 207-223 grains are represented in Mr.
Poole's table by one series whose average weight is 214, but they all
APPENDIX in. 229
come from Cyprus, and are therefore a very slender foundation for
founding a theory of the normal weight of Egyptian coins; and it is
far more probable that these coins are an exceptionally light issue of
the series which M. Revillout makes his \ obol. Between this doubtful
denomination of 4 copper drachmae weighing 207-223 and his next
denomination of |- obol weighing 129-139 grains, M. Revillout has
again committed the extraordinary mistake of omitting from his ' prin-
cipales series ' a whole series of extremely common coins. From
Euergetes I's reign five coins from Phoenicia and four from Egypt have
an average weight of 168 grains, while there are two examples of 180
and 157 ; 171 is the average weight of three coins from Egypt belonging
to Philopator's reign, 170 the average of six from Cyprus belonging to
Epiphanes, and coins ranging from 145-170 are common in the reigns
of Philometor, Euergetes II, and Soter II with various provenances.
The extreme commonness of this series was apparently sufficient to
secure its rejection from M. Revillout's list of ' principales series,'
amongst which are frequently found coins whose very existence may be
doubted, and which must in any case, since they are not found in the
magnificent collection of the British Museum, be extremely rare. But
as this series exists in great abundance, a place has somehow to be
found for it in M. Revillout's system, though the stability of that
ingenious fabric has already become so questionable that a fresh shock
is likely to prove fatal to it altogether. But the easiest, which is also
the most probable, theory is to suppose a coin whose denomination is
half that coin equivalent to iV obol or 6\ copper drachmae of which
the insertion in M. Revillout's system was found to be necessary. This
series therefore will be ^% obol or 3^ copper drachmae, which is a more
inconvenient fraction than ever.
Next to his | obol, which, it may be noticed, is much commoner in
the period after Philopator than before and therefore must be also
i\ copper drachmae, M. Revillout places his copper didrachm of
104-111 grains. As this coin occurs in Ptolemy Ill's reign it must
then have been xV obol. Next comes his xV obol, which may pass,
though whether it can be assigned only to the period before Philopator
rests on the admissibility or the reverse of coins weighing 67 grains
from Cyprus in the reign of Philometor, and a similar kind of difficulty
exists concerning the occurrence of his copper drachma before Philo-
230 APPENDIX III.
pator's reign, when it would be gV obol. M. Revillout has by this time
so effectually led his readers to expect the omission of a more than
usually common series in his table, that it is not surprising to find no
mention in it of a number of very common coins weighing 40, 45, 39, 40,
46, 40, 38, 32, ^^, 33, 30 grains of various dates and provenances. The
simplest explanation of them on his theory is to suppose that most, if
not all, are half of either his copper didrachm or his j^ obol, though
either course is practically fatal to supposing that his theory of their
normal weights can be correct, and either course involves him in a still
more inconvenient fraction, both of the obol and of the copper drachrna,
than those which have already been found to be necessary.
The denominations of the smaller coins are, on any theory, so
doubtful that it is not worth while to discuss them, beyond pointing out
the fact that the weight which, on M. Revillout's theory, represents the
\ copper drachma has not yet been found in coins which can certainly
be ascribed to Egypt or Phoenicia, and that the period in which the
coin occurs is precisely that period in which M. Revillout says that it
does not.
To sum up the leading objections to M. Revillout's classification, in
the first place the only chronological determination which he gives is
not only misleading but incorrect, and he has therefore found himself
involved in a number of fractions both of the obol and of copper
drachmae which are more or less inconvenient and improbable. If
M. Revillout can show on numismatical grounds why the coins, which
Mr. Poole assigned both to the period before Philopator and to the period
after, in reality belong to either one period or the other, I am ready to
accept his division. But if, as seems more probable, his chief, perhaps
his only, reason for assigning the coins to one period or the other was
that such a division was necessary for his theory, while giving ready
credence to this necessity, I cannot treat seriously a division that so
palpably assumes the whole point which it was required to prove.
Secondly, the weights of the actual coins are, to postpone other objec-
tions, very much more irregular than M. Revillout allows. So far from
the actual weights of most coins corresponding with M. Revillout's sup-
posed normal weights, there are considerable variations both above and
below. If M. Revillout should argue that these irregular coins are the
exception, my answer is that by suppressing their weights and their
APPENDIX III. 231
numbers compared with those which he says are the ' principales series,'
he begs the whole question at issue, and moreover, though the precise
condition of admission into M. Revillout's 'principales series^ must
remain a matter of conjecture, it at any rate had little to do with the
commonness of the series.
Thirdly, in order to obtain any approach to a satisfactory classifica-
tion which will give the ordinary fractions of the obol and the
intelligible fractions of 30 copper drachmae, M. Revillout's theory rests
on several series of coins which are not found in Mr. Poole's table.
I do not intend here to discuss the question whether any coin so rare
that it is not represented in the table of copper coins in the British
Museum can be made to serve as one of M. Revillout's ' principales
series.' When it is known where these coins are, what is their number,
what their condition, what their precise weight, what their probable date,
and what their probable provenance, it will be time to discuss them as
evidence for or against M. Revillout's and Mr. Poole's theories. But
M. Revillout has by the astonishing omissions from his classification
completely given away his case, and forfeited any right to expect the
world to accept his generalizations about the weights of coins, whose
very existence he has not yet proved.
All the faults of M. Revillout's system however, amply sufficient
though they are to show its powerlessness to overcome the difficulties
with which every system has to contend, pale into insignificance beside
his extraordinary mistake, in still ignoring in his classification of ' les
principales series' three series of coins, which were not only three of the
very commonest series, but were absolutely fatal to the symmetry, and
therefore to the correctness, of his system.
Further comment on M. Revillout's classification is needless, since
the internal evidence, which is by far the most important, has sufficiently
condemned it. But for the sake of completeness I will add what
appears to be a strong external argument against it.
M. Revillout's theory supposes the identity of weight between
20 copper drachmae or one copper ' argenteus-outen,' and 30 silver
drachmae or one silver 'argenteus-outen,' both on the Phoenician
standard. At first sight there would seem to be no difficulty in sup-
posing that, as the silver ' argenteus-outen ' on the Phoenician standard
was called an argenteus, although it only weighed | of the real uten, so
232 APPENDIX III.
the copper ' argenteus-outen ' might weigh only ^ of the real uten. There
is however an essential difference between the two cases, which becomes
apparent as soon as the origin of the term ' ai'genteus,' i. e. uten, as the
equivalent of 20 silver drachmae is considered. When Soter began to
coin silver, his first tetradrachms were, as has been stated, on the Attic
standard and their normal weight 370 grs. The ditTerence between 20
silver drachmae and the argenteus-outen of about 1400 grs. is, as M. Re-
villout himself has occasion to point out, too trifling to be considered.
When the weight of the silver coins was reduced to the Phoenician
standard, it was natural that the demotic names continued to be used,
although the divergence in weight between the real uten and the coins
called argentei had become serious.
But this analogy does not hold good for the copper argentei. Here
there is no question of a coin which once approximately weighed an
uten and, though diminished in weight, still represented the same
denomination, but rather of the adoption of new terms to express coins
whose normal weights, as Mr. Poole remarks, had not diminished. More-
over there is this difference that while in silver there never were two
denominations issued simultaneously, one approximately weighing the
uten the other not, in copper there were, according to M. Revillout's
own theory, two series, one corresponding almost exactly to the real
uten, and another weighing on the average 280 grains less. Yet on
M. Revillout's theory it is the latter coin, not the former coin approxi-
mating to the real uten, which in copper received the name ' argenteus '
or uten. It may be objected that the ' nouvel outen monetaire ' repre-
senting I- of the old uten had been for a hundred years in existence ;
but this hardly alters the difficulty of supposing that one of the most
conservative nations in the world, a nation whose conservatism is shown
by nothing clearer than the fact of their preferring with regard to the
silver coinage an approximately equivalent term in their own language
to the official term used by their rulers, had in one hundred years so far
forgotten their ancient and historic weights, that they applied the names
of argenteus and kati not to classes of coins which were almost, perhaps
actually, identical with them, but to another series of classes approxi-
mating in weight much less closely to the real and historic weights.
At any rate it will hardly be denied that a theory of the copper
drachma which will make the normal weights of the various denomina-
APPENDIX in. 233
tions correspond closely, if not actually, to the literal meaning of the
demotic names will possess a great advantage; and it is in fact such
a theory of the copper drachma which Mr. Poole has adopted, though
on the evidence of the coins themselves.
§.7. The theory of the Egyptian standard of the copper coinage.
Mr. Poole in his Catalogue hesitates between the Egyptian and the
Attic standard for the copper coins. On p. xxxvii he thinks it is prob-
ably Egyptian, on p. xci he adopts the Attic in preference on the
ground that ' the subdivisions would rather suggest the Attic system, and
it is unlikely that an Egyptian one would have been forced on the
inhabitants of Cyprus and the Cyrenaica.' But he proceeds to say
' The difference is too small to be of consequence in the comparison,
considering the irregularity with which the copper money was struck,'
and concludes by referring the reader to M. Revillout's researches in
the demotic papyri. In the light of the new information afforded
by the Greek papyri discovered since 1883, the examination of M. Re-
villout's speculations based on the demotic papyri has shown that
Mr. Poole's estimate of their value was far too high ; and M. Revil-
lout's classification of weights, to which I have been unable to find any
reference in Mr. Poole's work except on p. xxxvii where he remarks
that ' since M. Revillout's researches doubt has been cast on this
hypothesis ' (that the copper coinage was on the Egyptian standard),
has already been disposed of. The theory of the Egyptian standard has
therefore to be decided by reference to the coins in accordance with the
facts given in Mr. Poole's table and by general considerations, but
without reference to M. Revillout's theories which cannot now affect it
either for good or for evil.
As Mr. Poole concedes that the difference in the normal weights of
the denominations on the Attic and Egyptian standard is of practically
no consequence, so that, as far as the coins are concerned, they will suit
either theory, and as the latter standard is the one which I wish to
propose as the theoretical standard of normal weights, I will first give
a table of supposed normal weights, and then explain and, if I can,
justify the slight modifications which I have ventured to introduce into
Mr. Poole's system. It is not necessary here to give the actual weights,
Hh
234
APPENDIX in.
Denomination
in copper.
20 dr. = I uten
Supposed
normal weight.
1400 grains
16
iiao
10
8
700
560
5
4=1 shekel
350
280
2i
2=1 kati
175
140
li
87-5
]
70
1
\
5
43-75
21-87
1
4
17-5
which the reader will find stated at length in Mr. Poole's table (Catal.
p. xcii).
Denomination
in silver.
obol
4
T
\
1
T
1
5
1
P
1
T.S
1
\^
1
20"
1
1
er
1
"8TJ"
In so far as the denominations which I propose are taken direct from
Mr. Poole's table, it is not necessary for me to justify them in detail.
Mr. Poole considered them on the whole the most suitable, and that is
sufficient. Difficulties and exceptions are of course numerous, as the
reader will see by referring to Mr. Poole's table, and difficulties and
exceptions there must be to every theory of a coinage so irregular.
The question is — which theory will explain the greatest number of
coins with the greatest symmetry ; and it was because M. Revillout
could only obtain any approach towards symmetry by ignoring the
commonest coins, that his theory breaks down. Moreover, exceptions
are of two kinds, those above a supposed normal weight and those below
it, and of the two the first class is much the harder to explain. Im-
poverishment of the Exchequer or frauds on the part of the Mint
supply an explanation for the frequent issue of coins even far below the
normal weights, and it is perhaps to causes which are the converse of
these, to a stop in the appreciation of silver, coinciding with the
appointment of a liberal director of the Mint, that issues of coins rising
above the normal weights may be assigned. It must also be taken
into account that coins often gain weight by oxidization as well as
APPENDIX in. 235
lose it. But the existence of coins above the supposed normal weight
remains a permanent difficulty. It is therefore to some extent an
advantage to place the normal weights as high as possible, since in
that case there are fewer coins above them and more below ; and this
advantage, whatever it be worthy is gained by raising the supposed normal
weights from the Attic to the Egyptian standard, and substituting
a 20 drachma piece or uten of 1400 grains for Mr. Poole's 20 Attic
drachmae of 1340. Moreover, if it is supposed that 20 Attic drachmae
were equated to the uten, this hypothesis perhaps helps to explain the
variations in the weights of the coins which may have been issued
now according to one system, now according to the other, in the different
countries.
Mr. Poole considers the coins whose weights are 1023, 1082, and
1 1 28 grains to be exceptionally light issues of the 20 drachma piece or
obol. But though there are great irregularities in the weights of other
denominations there are none so great as these, and I prefer therefore to
suppose the existence of another denomination between the obol and
the \ obol. As the copper coins have to be explained primarily as
fractions of the obol, not as fractions of 20 copper drachmae, which were
afterwards equated to the fractions of the obol, the choice lies between
4 and |. The second fraction is in some respects simpler, but its normal
weight, 1050 grains, does not suit the coins so well as the normal weight
of the other fraction. Moreover, between the coin whose denomination
is ^ obol or 10 drachmae and the coin whose denomination is iV obol or
a copper didrachm, Mr. Poole sees two series alternating with each other,
one \, f, i, the other |, \, yV- For the sake of symmetry therefore it is
convenient to suppose a 4 obol between the obol and the \ obol, and the
difficulty of the fraction | is not any greater than that of |, ^, or J^-''
I have already pointed out that this second series, f , |, iV= which is found
alternating with the easily explicable series of \, |, \, xVj causes the
principal difficulty in Ptolemaic copper coins, and on this point the
theory of the Egyptian standard seems to offer a solution. For since,
as I have said, there are historical analogies for the case of a conquering
race imposing its own silver coinage on the conquered, but retaining the
pre-existing system of copper coinage, there is not much difficulty, if the
theory of the Egyptian standard is correct, in supposing that these
fractions of the obol, |, f, \, tV, were issued because they were the
H h 2
236 APPENDIX III.
fractions of the copper uten to which the Egyptians had from time
immemorial been accustomed. But the advantage of this explanation,
the value of which I leave to the consideration of numismatists, is of
course shared by Mr. Poole's theory to practically the same degree,
since whether the normal standard was Egyptian or Attic or both, the
obol was at least as approximately identical in weight with the uten as
was the silver ' argenteus outen ' with the 20 Attic drachmae of which
in Soter's reign it was the equivalent.
The fact seems to have been that there were two series of fractions,
one for Greeks representing the normal fractions of the Attic obol, the
other for Egyptians representing fractions of the uten. The Greek
papyri naturally mention only chalci or the Greek fractions of the obol.
With regard to the demotic names of the copper coins, it is for demotic
scholars to decide whether the copper coins representing in weight the
uten and its subdivisions, shekels and kati, were in the third century
ever called utens, shekels and kati of copper, as they were called in the
second, or whether they were treated only as fractions of the silver kati.
In the latter case, it is probable that mentions of the Egyptian series of
fractions |, \, xV of the obol or ^V, oV^ t\^ of the kati will be found in
demotic accounts of the third century corresponding to a shekels,
I shekel, and i kati, which are found in demotic papyri of the second.
Between his didrachm of 135 grains and his drachma of 67-5
Mr. Poole places a supposed \\ drachma weighing 1 01-25, which would
be 105 on the F"gyptian standard. Both these normal weights are some-
what high, for the actual coins weigh 100, 92-5, 85 Phoenicia: 80, 75
Egypt: 85 Cyrenaica: 96 Phoen. : 79 Cyprus: 80 Eg.: 91 Cyren:
70, 87 Cyr. I have therefore preferred to make the supposed normal
weight of this series 87-5, i. e. half the coin weighing 175, and double the
coin of which Mr. Poole considers the normal weight to be 45, while on
my theory its normal weight is 43"75- These modifications which I
have suggested have perhaps an advantage in making the denominations
descend more regularly, and, provided that they will suit the coins, the
fractions yV and ^V obol are more convenient than /„ and /„.
The next coin is on Mr. Poole's Attic standard i drachma or ^V obol,
and on mine ^V obol or f copper drachma, the difference between our
supposed normal weights for it being just over \ grain. But the fixino-
of all these small denominations below the drachma must remain largely
APPENDIX III. 237
a matter of conjecture, as even a slight irregularity of weight in the
coins is sufficient to make it uncertain to what series it should be
assigned. The important thing is to fix the larger denominations,
and on all the essential points the theory of the Egyptian standard
is perfectly consistent not only with Mr. Poole's facts, but with the
conclusions which he draws from them. Whether the few slight
modifications in his system suggested by an amateur like myself have any
value is a question which I leave to the consideration of numismatists,
who alone can decide it. But if my suggested improvements are found
unsatisfactory, their rejection will only bring out into still clearer relief
the authority attaching to the illustrious numismatist's own system and
to his condemnation of M. Revillout's.
There is one point which although already stated, will bear repetition,
that the Ptolemaic copper coins must, if not in the order of time yet in
the order of thought, be explained as fractions of the obol before they
are explained as copper drachmae. My reason for insisting on this is
that Mr. Poole in his list of supposed denominations was clearly to some
extent influenced by M. Revillout's erroneous but generally accepted
theory that copper played a very unimportant part in Egypt before
Philopator and the period of copper drachmae. As Mr. Poole does
not in his Catalogue commit himself to any theory of the exchange
ratio, it was natural that he should look at the copper coins as multiples
of the Attic drachma, since he makes no statement about the weight of
a copper obol. But the coins were obols and fractions of obols long
before they were copper drachmae, and though it is necessary for
purposes of argument to begin with them as copper drachmae, it is
as far back as the reign of Philadelphus that the true meaning of the
weights is found in that equation of the obol with the uten of copper,
which, following equally from Mr. Poole's theory of the Attic standard
or mine of the Egyptian, appears to offer the least difficult, the most
symmetrical, and the most satisfactory classification of the coins.
This brings me to the last question to be considered, the origin of the
copper coinage. For the reign of Soter there are only a few demotic
papyri containing no mention of copper, and a certain number of copper
coins, which, so far as their provenances can be ascertained, are assigned
by Mr. Poole with a few exceptions to the Cyrenaica or Cyprus. How
far therefore these coins can be accepted as evidence for the Egyptian
238 APPENDIX III.
coinage may well be doubted, for, if there is any appreciable difference
between Egyptian or Phoenician coins and those from the Cyrenaica or
Cyprus, it is that the Egyptian and Phoenician coins tend to be somewhat
heavier on the average, so that the Attic rather than the Egyptian
standard is the more suitable for Cyprus and the Cyrenaica, in addition
to the argument brought by Mr. Poole of the improbability that an
Egyptian standard would be forced on the outlying Greek dependencies.
But a comparison of these copper coins assigned to Soter's reign with
the coins from the Cyrenaica and Cyprus of a later date shows that the
normal weights did not materially alter after Soter's reign, and it may
therefore be conjectured that copper in Egypt, so far as it was used in
Soter's reign, was on the same standard as it was afterwards.
The circumstances of that reign were of course exceptional. The
conquests of Alexander had poured on the Hellenistic world the vast
treasures of the East, of which Soter had secured his full share.
Necessarily for a time silver was much cheapened, and as Soter could
afford at first to issue his tetradrachms on the Attic standard, the copper
coins which were actually or approximately on the Attic standard,
stood during that period at the ratio of 120:1. But the period of
cheap silver during which even the obol seems to have been coined
in silver, since the large copper coins representing the obol are not
assigned by Mr. Poole to an earlier date than Philadelphus' reign
and there are a few very small silver coins which may be assigned to
that of Soter, soon passed away. Soter first reduced his silver coins
to the Rhodian standard, bringing the ratio between silver and copper
up to 140 : I, and finally reached the Phoenician standard for silver
with a ratio of 150 : i, maintained in reality by Philadelphus and
Euergetes, but only in name by their successors, who, as has been
explained, adopted the alternative of debasing the silver down to the
market ratio in preference to that of reflecting the market ratio in
a pure coinage of diminished weight.
§ 8. Conclusion.
Of M. Reviilout's two brilliant and elaborate fabrics, based on his
interpretation of the demotic papyri and his classification of the coins, by
the glamour of which he has stood forth in the eyes of Eui'ope since
APPENDIX III. 239
1 88a as the chief authority on the subject, what remains? The first
has in the h'ght of the new information afforded by the Greek papyri
assumed an aspect so changed as to be hardly recognizable ; while of
the second a comparison with the recorded facts has left hardly one
stone standing. In bidding farewell to M. Revillout's ingenious but
unsound speculations, the conclusion of the whole matter is this : that
the science of numismatics is concerned with actual, not with imaginary
coins, and that if M. Revillout had been anxious not to risk his high
place in the long roll of the illustrious successors of Champollion, he
would have left questions of coinage to the numismatist, or, when he
had to discuss them, he would at any rate have listened, and listened
humbly, to what the numismatist has to say.
The evidence for the solution of the three problems which I pro-
posed at the beginning of this essay has now been reviewed. With
regard to the discount on copper and the standard metal in use at
various periods the papyri have provided the material for an approximate
generalization, which was both confirmed and explained by the history
of the silver and copper coinage. Both papyri and coins were found
to converge towards the exchange ratio of 1 20 : i ; though they have
not yet finally reached the goal. Lastly the two divisions of the third
question, the ratio between silver and copper as metals and their ratio
as coins, were found to be practically one question, the answer to which
is that from the time of Philadelphus the rate was either in reality
or name approximately 150 : i ; and the answer to this problem is
sufficient to convert, at least provisionally, the whole system of Ptole-
maic coinage, of which the outline as complete as the evidence will
allow has been given in these pages, into a consistent whole.
Much still remains to be done. The publication of detailed and
accurate catalogues of the Ptolemaic copper coins in other European
collections on the lines of Mr. Poole's great work will probably go far
to solve many of the difficulties of classification which have yet to
be overcome. The demotic papyri may be expected to give some
new and much confirmatory evidence for the extensive use of copper
before Philopator and the problems connected with it. But it is from
Greek papyri, especially of the reigns of Philopator and Epiphanes,
when taken in conjunction with the coins, that most will probably
some day be learnt, since it is there, if anywhere, that an instance of
240 APPENDIX III.
the conversion of silver drachmae into copper drachmae is most likely
to be found.
It is even possible that the final solution of some of the problems
may be within reach. Prof. Flinders Petrie has handed over to me
for publication the remainder of the vast Petrie collection, which
exceeds in bulk, though it falls short in importance, the selections
already published by Prof. Mahafify. Many of these papyri, it has
now appeared from the occurrence in the collection of documents dated
as late as P. P. xlvi, might belong to the reigns of Philopator and
Epiphanes, and the cursory examination which I have made of them
has shown me that many of them probably belong to the end rather
than the middle of the third century, and has resulted in my publishing
those printed in App. ii, of which the last is of the utmost importance
for the history of the coinage. To the further examination of this
collection, supplemented by the papyrus mummy cases of the same
period, which I found at Gurob last spring but have not yet had time
to open, I propose, with the aid of Mr. A. S. Hunt, to devote myself
in the course of the next few years, in the hope of making more com-
plete the answer here given in outline to the questions of the coinage,
the solution of which must always, as Lumbroso has observed, form
the basis of a correct understanding of Ptolemaic political economy.
I conclude by thanking Profs. Wilcken, Gardner, and Mahaffy who
have kindly revised the proofs of this Appendix, and who, I may
add, have expressed their agreement with the general theory which
I have proposed.
INDEX.
I. PROPER NAMES AND PLACE NAMES.
(The figures in heavier type refer to columns.)
AiySuTj 31. 4; 40. 14; 61. I, 6, 12.
AijxvT] 31. 13 ; 69. 2 ; 71. 5 ; 72. I2.
Aijivirr\s 71. 10.
kBpi^irT)s 31. 5 ; 63. 14, 30 ; 64. 2.
AiyDTTTjos 57.4; 59.3; Fr. 6(c) 12.
AAe^aj^Speta 40. 14 ; 47. 15, 18 ; 50.
7; 52. 8, 14, 15, 20, 26, 28; 53.
19, 27; 54. 9, 16, 18; 55. 15;
58. 6; 60. 12, 21, 24; 61. 4, 16 ;
62. 5 ; 72. 22 ; 91. 3 ; 97. 5 ; 99.
6 ; 107. 4 ; Fr. 6 (a) 7.
AiroXXtoi'tos 23. 2 ; 38. 3.
ApajBia 31. 9; 65. 13, 18; 66. 2.
Apa-ivorj 36. I9.
A(f}pohLTOTTo\iTr]s 31. 13; 71. 13, 21.
BepeviKri Fr. 6 (c) 6.
Bou^aoTirrjs 31. 9 ; 64. 19; 65. 3, II.
Bovpaa-Tos 31. 10 ; 64. 20 ; 65.4,11.
Bova-ipiT-qs 31. 7 ; 63, 6, IT.
AeXra 31. 6.
AtoyDtroScopos 37. 12.
EXewts 89. 13.
EpixoTToMrris 31. II ; 69. 8, 14, 21.
HAtoTToXiTTjs 64. 3, 9, 17.
HpaKXeoTToXtTTjs 31. 13; 70. II, 17;
71.3.
©Tj/Sats 24. 8; 31. 14 ; 72. 18.
KwoTroXtTJjs 31. 12; 72. i, 7.
Aeoz^roTToXtrijs 31. 8 ; 67. 8, 12, 20.
ArjroTToXiTT/s 31. II ; 68. 15, 21.
Me/x(/)ts 31. 10; 69. I, 6.
Mep.(f>iTr]s 31. 10; 72. II, 17.
MevSr]a-ios 31. 7 ; 62. 16, 20; 63. 5.
Mej/eXats 31. 5.
Nau/cpany 60. 18.
NtrpiojDjs 61. 20 ; 62. 2.
0^i'pi;yXtrT7s 31. II ; 70. I, 9.
rTrjXouo-ioy 52. 9, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27 ;
54. 16, 17 ; 93. I, 4.
npoo-MTTiTTjy 31. 5; 61. 13, 18.
ITroXe^atoj 1. I, 2 i5?J ; 24. I bis, 2 ;
37. 2.
2atrTjj 31. 4; 60. 18, 23.
Sarvpos 36. II ; 37. II.
^ejSevvvTris 31. 7 ; 62. 3, 7, 15.
l,ej3evvvTos 93. I, 4.
SeSpcoirr)? 31. 8 ; 66. 3, 7, 15.
2t//apto"ros 24. 9.
Supta 54. 17.
Supos 52. 26.
Sft)rT)p 1. I.
Tai'trr)? 31. 10; 66. 16, 20; 67. 6.
*ap/3at0trr)s 31. 8 ; 68. I, 5, 13.
tXa8eX(^os 36. 10, 19; 37. 7.
I 1
242
INDEX.
II. SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS.
a" = ava 98. I, 2, 3 bis, 4 bis.
cS = apovpa 60. 19, 20, 23 ; 61-72,
saep.
a/ = aprafir) 57. T2 ; 59. 13.
a/) or op = apra^r] 39. II, 12 ; 41.
10, II ; 43. 17 iw, 18 bis; 46. 17
(52>, 19 bis, 20 ; 53. 7, 16, 17 ; 55.
5, 7, 8 <5w, 9 bis ; 60. 25 ; 61-72
saep.
h = SpaXW 31. 6, 13, 14 ; 33. 17 ;
39- ?„S,^, 15; 40. 7, II, 13, 15,
16; 41. 10, II, 18, 19; 43. 17,
i%bis; 44. 17; 45. 4, 5, 6, 10;
46. 19, ao; 49. 21 ; 60. 12, 19 ;
52. a, 6, II, 15, 25; 53. 7, %bis,
14 3w, 15 (Jzi-, 16, 17 bis, 20, 21 ^w,
22 bis ; 54. 2 ; 55. 5, 7^ 8 i^zj', 9 ;
57. 12 bis; 59. 13, 14; 75. 4;
76. 8; 77.8; 87. 2, II ; 94. 2, 5;
95- 5. 6, 7, 8, 12; 96. 6; 97.4)
98. I, 3, \bis.
'/3x° = StoSeKaxous 53. 20.
L = iTos 33. 14, 21 ; 36. a, 7 ; 37.
9, 14^; 38.1; 53.10,11; 59.4;
Fr.4(l)3.5; Fr. 6(c) II.
/xe = juerpijrr)? 31. 6 ; 32. 19 ; 52. 6,
II, 25; 63. 8, 14, 15 (5?J, 20 (Jzj,
54. 2.
/ner = \i,(Tpr\Tr\s 52. 15.
V = J obol 53. 14, 21.
C = I obol 95. 6; 101. I.
— =1 obol 53. 15 ; 55. 8, 9 ; 95.
5,6.
= = 2 obols 39. 6 ; 40. 13, 15 ;
43. 18; 53. 15, 17, ao, ai ; 66.5;
101. I.
/= 3 obols 39. 7 ; 45. 4 ; 63. 14, 17.
/— = 4 obols 39. 6 ; 45. 5 ; 53. 14,
15: 31, aa.
/= = 5 obols 45. 6.
X'' or )('' = oKxaxovs 31. 6 ; 32. 1 9.
"^ = Trryx^jy 98. I, 2, 3.
5^ = rakavTOv 13. 12 ; 15. 14 ; 41. 9 ;
46. 6 ; 47. 8 ; 49. 8 ; 51. ID ; 54.
12; 89. I ; 97. 4.
III. GENERAL INDEX.
ayuv 62.14,18,21,23; Fr. 6(t)l2.
ayopa(iiv 4. 10 ; 14. 12; 34. 3, II
41. 22 ; 42. 2 ; 45. 6; 55. 18
60. 23 ; 61-72 saep. ; 74. 6 ; 75. 4
76. 1, 3, 6 ; 96. 3 ; Fr. 4 {i) 8.
ayopaioy 77. 5 ; 97. II.
aycoyt/ioj 44. II, 17.
ahuyyvoi 17. 3.
aStxeti' 35. 3.
aSiKOs 20. [O.
aCrjpiLos 30. 13.
aireiv 20. 9.
aiTtos 41. 8 ; 47. 8 ; 51. 10.
aKoXovdeLv 55. 22.
a\L 2o-
aTTOTTpap.a 18. 1 6.
aTTOoreXAeij' 18. 6 ; 37. 6 ; 51. 33 ;
54. 17.
aiTO(T 15; 27. 5, 9, 12, 14; 28. 9,
73; 29. 15, 17; 30, 7, 9, 19, 21;
31. 35, 30; 32. 7, 8, 14; 36. 7;
39. 8, 13, 19; 40. 4; 42. 5, 11;
43. 2, 4, 7, ID, 24; 46. 10.
yri 36. 8, 17 ; 43. 12.
yivea-dai 3. I ; 9. 8 ; 14. 14 ; 16. 5,
8 ; 17. II ; 21. Ii, 14; 24. 4; 25.
12 ; 28. 6, 14 ; 30. 21 ; 34. 8, 18 ;
36. I bis; 37. 7, 8, 16; 43. 13;
45. 17; 51. 20; 53. 24; 55. 12,
23 ; 56. 19 ; 61-72 saep. ; 107. 6 ;
Fr. 5 {a) 6, [d) 3.
yop-os 54. 9.
Top-niaio's 57. 4; 59. 3.
ypap.p,a 9. 6.
ypa\xjxaTevii.v 36. 4.
ypaixp-aTevs, see l3aai\iKos ypafxpLarevi.
ypaeLV 34. 14.
eiii,Qqjxioi 7. 6.
enidaKaaaios 93. 5-
€Ti LKrjpva-creLV 48. 13.
eTTLKpLvetv 28. 6, 7 ; Fr. 3 (^) 5.
eTrtKOjA.iifii' 30. 7 ; 46. a.
eTTtAoyeuetz-' 4. 3 ; 6. I ; 8. 4.
i-niXoyevais 19. 13.
eTTifJ-ekrjs 37. 7.
eTTLixiayfiv 28. 1 7 ; 29. I.
eTnTTapapLOfxeLV 76. a.
fTTLariixaLveiv 44. I.
eTTLTKOireLV 19. 8 ; 33. a.
eTTio-TeXXgw 44. 15.
einaToX.ri 92. 3.
e-mTipLov 43. 8 ; 85. I, 7 ; Fr. 4 (i^)
6, (^) 8.
eTTiTpeneiv 44. 9.
eiritoi' 17. a.
epyaCeo-^at 46. 14 ; 49. 5.
INDEX.
247
epyacTia 49. 6.
ipyaei.K.ooTos 34. 3 ; 56. 15.
ecpKTTavaL 48. 6, 14.
€0oSos 10. I, 16 ; 12. 17.
e(f>opav 25. I.
ex^Lv 4. 3 ; 18. 3; 27. 13; 31. 3;
36. 12 ; 37. lO ; 39. 19 ; 43. 13 ;
53. 27 ; 54. 7 ; 85. 3; 88. 6 ;
96. I. exoiJ-evo9 16. 15 ; 18. II ;
34. 30; 56. 17. ex- '""'J^ cavrjv or
ras corns 10. 13; 16. 3 ; 18. I, lO ;
20. I ; 25. I, 16; 26. 9; 27. 1 ;
28.3,15; 29. 13,16,20; 34. 13;
41. 9 ; 42. 7, 14 ; 46. 8; 49. 14,
19, 30; 50. 15; 51. 19; 52. 4;
53. 4, 33 ; 54. 31 ; 55. 35 ; 57.
33 ; 60. I ; 84. I, 3, 6, 9 ; 85. 8 ;
107. 9; Fr. 2 (/) I.
eojs 10. 14; 13. 13 ; 34. 5 ; 37. 14;
55. 22.
(riT€iv 55. 19, 20; 56. I, 7, 8.
CT/rrjo-is 55. 17, 23 ; 56. 4, 9, I3.
rj fxrjv 56. 8.
rjye/xojz; 37. 3.
rip.epa 4. I, 2 ; 6. 3 ; 9. 1,5; 15. 16 ;
19. 13; 29. 15; 32. 7 ; 33. lo,
11; 34.3,4; 35. 4; 43. 5; 46.
13, 15; 47. 15; 48. ID, 15, 16;
49. 12 ; 50. 10, 14, 19 ; 53. 6, 7 ;
56. I, 16 ; 75. 3,4; 81. 4; 86.
r, 2; 93. 10.
riiXfpoX.eybov 4. I.
rjixLoXiOS 54. 3.
dvaia 36. 1 9.
i8to? 16. 14 ; 19. 3 ; 32. 10 ; 52. 13,
23 ; Fr. 3 (k) 2.
lepevs 37. 17 ; 106. 3 ; 107. 4.
lepov 33. 14, 30 ; 37. 15 ; 50. 30, 34;
51. g, 13, 31, 35 ; 56. 8.
lepos 36. 8.
1x^0532.4; 40. 17; 43. 16; 44.
6; 45. 14.
LITTTapXOS 37. 3.
LTicoTripiov 49. 6, 13 ; 51. J, %.
Laos 39. 13 ; 57. 17, 31 ; 59. 19, 34.
la-ravai 16. 4 ; 18. 13.
tcTT-os 90. 4; 94. 2, 5.
KadaipeLV 39. 9.
Kadairep 29. 9 ; 52. 27.
KaOapos 39. 3, 4, 5, 8.
KadrjKeiv 41. 14.
KadifTTavai 3. 2 ; 13. I ; 21. 4, 6, 8 ;
29. 5 : 31. 18 ; 34. 2 ; 44. 4 ; 45.
7, 13 ; 46. 8 ; 47. 10 ; 48. i ; 51.
19 ; 52. 27 ; 54. 20 ; 56. 14 ; Fr.
6 {a) 12.
KaOoTi 28. 7 ; 45. 13 ; 55. 16 ; 74.
3 ; Fr. 4 [m) 3.
Kttdcos 21. 3.
KaKeiv 8. 3 ; 21. 13, 16; 35. 3.
KairriXos 47. II ; 48. 3, 7.
KapTTijios 55. 20.
KapTTOs 29. 13, 18 ; 34. 10 ; 43. 5.
KarajSakkHV 48. 10 ; 52. 15, 18, 23 ;
74. 2 ; 75. 5.
KarajikaTiTeiv 40. 8 ; 45. II, l^.
Karaypacj)-!} 34. 4.
KarahiKa^iaOai 5. 2.
KaTaXa\xjiaveiv 43. 5-
KaraTTpoiivai 27. II.
KaraaKevrj 45. 20 ; 46. II.
KaTaaiieipeiv 41. 6; 42. 16; 57. 8;
59. 9.
248
INDEX.
KaTaTaa-cTiiv 44. 9.
KaTa\pT!](T6ai 50. 14.
KttTaxd'pi-Cii'V IQ. 14; 19. 10 ; 27. 7,
10 ; 28. 15 ; 31. 15 ; 48. I ; 52.
31 ; 54. 13.
KarepyaCecrdaL 45. 3 ; 46. 14 ; 49.
17; 51. 12, 16, 34; 55. I; 56.
20; 57. 19, 22; 59. 22, 25; 61-
72 Ja^/.
Karepyov 21. 2 ; 46. 2 ; 53. 25 ; 55.
15; Fr. 6 («) 14.
KaTOLKiiv 26. 15.
Kepajxiov 32. 3 ; 55. 4.
Kepaixos 32. 2, 3, 8, 14, 16 ; 53. 21.
KiKL 40. 10, 12, 15, 16 ; 41. 12 ; 47.
14; 48. 4; 49. 18 ; 51. 18, 21 ;
53. 8, 14, 20, 21, 27 ; 55. 7 ; 57.
18, 31 ; 58.2; 59.31,24; 60.
5, 17-
KXripos 24. 7 ; 36. 13.
K\ripov\os 36. 13.
Kvr]Kivos 40. 10; 49. 18; 63. 15, 22;
55. 8.
KV7]Kos 39. 5, 12 ; 42. 4; 43. 18 ; 44.
6; 46. 17, 20; 49. 17; 53. lO,
17; 55.5.
KOivwv 10. 10; 11. 15; 14. 10, 16;
18. 3.
KOU'oiveLV 13. 10 ; 15. 3 ; 22. 3.
KoXafeti' 15. 7.
KoXoKvvQivos 39. 6 ; 40. lO, 12 ; 53.
23 ; 55. 6, 9 ; 57. 18 ; 58. 3 ; 59.
31 ; 60. 5.
Kop.iCiLv 28. 13; 29. 15; 31. 19, 31;
32. 16; 41. 19; 42. 13; 43. 16;
48. 8; 52. 13, 37, 39; 53. l^.
KOTTeDS 45. 5-
KOCTKIVOV 39. 9.
KOTvXri 40. 13, 15.
KpLveiv 46. 4 ; 90. 9.
KpoTcov 39. 3, 13, 15, 30; 41. Ilj 35,
18, 21, 26 ; 42. 4 ; 43. 14, 17, 21,
33 ; 44. 6 ; 46. 17, 19 ; 49. 17 ;
53. 6, 8, 10, 17 ; 55. 5 ; 57. 6. 10,
II, 13, 14, 15, 2T; 58. I, 4; 59.
7> II. 13, 14, 16, 18, 35; 60. 4,
10, 20 ; 61-72 saep.
KTaaOai 29. 3 ; 33. 19 ; 36. 14.
KrTj/:ia 37. 14, 17.
Kvpieveiv 3. 3 ; 46. lO.
KVpiwi 30. 6.
Kvpovv 48. 17.
Kmixapxns 40. 2, 3, 5.
Kcojujj 26. 14; 29. 6 ; 31. 18 ; 40. 6,
19; 43. 13; 44. 3; 48. 4, 6, 17;
54. 12 ; 75. I ; 85. II ; Fr. 6 (/«)
5,8.
\ap.^aveLv 6. 2; 10. 12 ; 11. I; 12.
2 ; 16. 13 ; 22. 2, 4 ; 32. 14 ; 34.
7; 36. 13; 37. 17; 39. 13; 40.
4; 41. 10; 45.5; 47. 14; 51. 18;
52. i6, 19 ; 53. 18, 19 ; 54. 7, lo ;
57. 17, 21, 33 ; 58. 7 ; 59. 30, 34,
35 ; 60. 14 ; 75. 6 ; 76. 4 ; 83.
10; 97. 6; Fr. 4 [b) 5; Fr. 6
{h) 3.
Aao? 42. II, 16.
Aeta Fr. I (epeiv 16. 10 ; 17.
fc; 49. 15.
IJ-erepxea-dai 44. II.
HfTexeiv 14. II, 13.
pt-eTOxr] 14. 10; 34. 16.
/i^eTOxos 34. 12, 13, 15, 19.
juerpeii; 25. 8 ; 48. 7 ; 57. 20 ; 59.
pieTpeiv 25.
23-
p.eTpr)Tr)s 40
rprjTTjs 4U. II, 13, 15, 16; 45. 4 ;
50. 12 ; 52. 2. See also Index
of Symbols.
lj.(Tpov 25. 8, 12 ; 40. 19.
Mexfip 86. 3 ; Fr. 6 (<:) 10.
p.rfiajxo6ev 52. 9.
f.itjz' 12. 15, 16, 18 ; 16. 4, 8 ; 18. 7,
11; 34.5; 38. I; 47. 18; 48. 5,
14 ; 54. 22 ; 56. ] 7 ; 57. 4 ; 59. 3 ;
86. 3 ; Fr. a (/) 5 ; Fr. 4 W 3 ;
Fr. 6 (c) 9, 10, II.
fj.r)TpoTioXis 48. 16; Fr. 4 (//) 8.
p.iaOos'i.^. 14; 45. II ; 55. 13, 16.
uiadovv 54. 12.
I ; 20. 3 ; 25. 3.
r"""""^ * — ■
ixiadovv 54. 12.
fxi»a 14. 13 ; 15
IJio\vpb[ 75. 8.
z^aureia 85. 6.
i/fjueti; Fr. 2 (^) 6.
2^t/caz' 23. 16 ; 84. 8.
vop.apxn^ 37. 3 ; 41. I, 7, 16 ; 42. 5,
6, 19; 43. 3; Fr. 4(c)5.
2^0/^ios = law 4. 8 ; 15. 12; 20. 6
21.3, II, 14, 15; 25. 15; 26. 7
29. 10 ; 30. 6, 9 ; 52. 28 ; 57. I
59. I ; 80. 2 ; 81. I, 3 ; 84. 8
Fr. 2 (^) 3.
yo/^o? = nome 32. 13 ; 83. 12 ; 36.
4 bis ; 37. 13 ; 41. 20, 25 ; 43. 21 ;
44. 8, 10 ; 46. 10 ; 52. 21 ; 53. 5,
18, 20 ; 57. 9, 10, 13 ; 58. I ; 59.
10, II, 15 ; 60. 3 ; 61. 9, 24 ; 62.
11, 19; 63. 2, 9, 16, 22; 64. 5,
13, 22; 65. 7, 15, 21; 66. 5, II,
18; 67. 2, II, 17; 68. 3, ID, 19;
69. ID, 18 ; 70. 6, 13, 21 ; 71. 9,
18; 72. 3; 107. 2; Fr. I (c) I.
ro/ixo? = distribution? 41. 16 : 43. 2.
vo(r(pL(eLv 27. 10.
ieviKos 52. 13, 26.
o^oXos 58. 7 ; 60. 15; 76.4. See
also Index of Symbols.
odoviov 98. 9 ; 99. 5.
oiKeiv 29. 6.
OLKOvofxos 3. 3 ; 5. 6 ; 10. II ; 11. 8,
II ; 12. I ; 13. 3; 16. 2; 17. 2,
17 ; 18. II, 13, 17; 19. II, 13;
20. 2 bis, 3, 7, 14; 21. 3 ; 22. 6 ;
25. 6, II ; 27. 12 ; 28. 6, 12 ; 29.
4, II, 18, 20 ; 30. II, 17 ; 31. 14,
18, 22; 32. 6; 34. II ; 37. 4 ;
40. 20 ; 41. 2, 4, 7, 14, 27 ; 42.
6 ; 43. 22 ; 44. 12 ; 45. 7, 16, 19 ;
46. 9 ; 47. 2, 10 ; 48. I, 5 ; 49.
II, 14, 22; 50.3,22 ; 51. 14,20;
52. 27; 53. 13, 26; 54. 20; 55.
21, 22; 57. 20; 58. 5; 59. 23;
60. II ; 74. I ; 81. 6; 83. 7 ; 87.
7 ; 89. 6 ; 91. I ; 96. 2, 4 ; 97. i ;
Fr. 3 (iJ) 2 ; Fr. 4 (^) 2 ; Fr- <5
(«)9-
oivo-noiiiv 25. 4; 25. 7 ; 26. I, II.
oiz/oy24. 4; 26.12,16; 32.4,19;
34. 7 ; 37. 18.
okiJ.os 39. 3, 5 /^z>, 9, II ; 46. 16;
49. 5, 13 ; 50. 24; 51. 2.
Ojxvveiv 56. II ; 86. 10.
opLOLMS 37. 18.
op.(j)a\os 92. 4.
K k
25°
INDEX.
ovofia 7. 2 ; 11. 14 ; 29. 6 ; 47. II ;
91. 5 ; 93.8; 104. 3 ; Fr. 6 (/«) 9.
oTTcos 36. I ; 37. 8.
opav 41. 13 ; 43. 3.
opyavov 26. I, 6 ; 46. 12 ; 47. 4, 7.
OpKlCilV 56. 8.
opKO? 27. 6, 14; 42. 17.
oana-ovv 36. 16 ; 37. 10 ; 49. 18.
o(j)ei,\fi.v 5. I ; 20. 8 ; 85. 9.
TiaXifJLTrpaTeiv 47. 16.
irapayiveaOaL 25. 7 > 30. 4, 13.
■napahiiyjxa 89. 3 ; 102. 4.
7rapa8eio-os 24. II ; 29. 2, 7 ; 33. II,
13, 19; 36. 6, 13, 15; 37. 10.
■rrapabexeaOai 14. 15 ; 87. 9.
irapabihovat, 12. 2 ; 49. 23 ; 89. 7.
•napaKaduTTavai 54. 15.
irapoKakeLv 20. 2 ; 25. 5 ; 30. 8 ; 42.
7 ; 55. 21.
TTapuKoKovdeLv 54. 19.
irapaKoixihr] 48. II ; 55. 12.
TcapaKOjxi^eiv 48. 4 ; 52. 26.
TTapakafxI^aveiv 9. I ; 33. 3 ; 34. 1 1 ;
43. 23; 49.2; 51. 13; 52. 4;
53. 4, 6 ; 54. 23 ; 55. 2 ; 58. 5 ;
60. II ; 74. I, 4.
'irapajj.eveiv 55. 23.
TtapapLerpeiv 39. 9 ; 43. 2, 12, 19.
irapapiOp-eiv 76. 3.
TrapaffcppayiCeo-Oai 46. II; 54. 18;
57. 23 ; 60. 2 ; 76. I.
■?rapacr(j}payiaiJ.os 26. 7 ; 51. 3, 8.
"napaTidevaL 44. 5 ; 45. 14.
■napaxpr]p.a 18. 2 ; 26. lO ; 30. 15.
TTapeivaL 18. lo ; 30. 10 ; 55. 20.
TTapevpetns 14. 7 ; 47. 3 ; 49. 7 ; 50.
6, 16 ; 54. 7 ; 74. 7.
■nap^xeiv 26. 7 ; 32. 2, 9, 14, 16 ; 40.
16; 43. 6; 51. 2, 8; 57. 9; 59.
10 ; 76. 2.
Trapiaravai 33. 4.
liar pis 7. 3 ; 11. 12 ; 104. 4.
■narpodev 7. 3 ; 11. 1 2 ; 104. 4.
TTefXTTTOS 105. 2.
■nevdrjpiepov 48. 8.
TTevTairkovv 11. 6 ; 49. 9 ; 51. II.
■nepiyiviuOai 19. 8.
■wepieivai 16. 16, 18; 17. 14; 34. 14.
TTepiCn^p-a 94. 7.
irnrpacTKeiv 2. I, 3 ; 18. 9 ; 22. I ;
29. 19.
TTiTTTelV 3. 6.
irkemv 4. 2, 3 ; 28. 5 ; 29. 16; 49.
4; 50. 8, 12; 52. 2, II ; 53. 12;
57. 6; 58. 8, 9; 59. 6 ; 60. 16.
TTkfovaCeLv 57. 13 ; 59. 15.
TTkrjdos 27. I; 33. I2; 36. 5, 17 ;
37. 15; 41.5; 43. 7; 48. 6.
Tjkrjprjs 17. 3.
Tikoiov 81. 2.
TTOtew 12. 13; 13. 11; 15. 13; 16.
15; 17. I, 17; 25. 14; 80. 12,
15; 33. 10; 34. 3, 20; 42. 13;
43. 21 ; 47. 2, 9; 48. I3, I7; 56.
9, 13 ; Fr. I {g) 2.
TTotos 37. 15.
TToXtj 26. 14 ; 40.18; 47. 12; 75.
I ; 104. 4.
■nopeia 50. II.
770(709 19. I ; 29. 6 ; 50. 23, 24.
TTpaypiaTevscrOat, 7. 2, 4 ; 8, 2 ; 10. ^,
17; 12. 2,5; 20. 15, 16; 21. 7;
30. 5 ; 36. 1 1 ; 37. 1 1 ; 47. 2, 14 ;
50. 2, 21 ; 51. 13; 55. 13.
■jTpaiis 5. 3 ; 15. 10 ; 17. 12 ; 20. 10 ;
28. II ; 34. 20.
TTpaa-LS 45. 9 ; 52. 5, 8 ; 54. I ; 55.
16.
TTpacraeiv 8. I ; 11. I ; 14. 13 ; 15.
II ; 18. 17 ; 19. II ; 20. 9, 16;
22.5; 29. II, 19 ; 33. 6; 34. 18;
39. 18; 43. 9 ; 57. 14; 58. 3;
59. 17; 60. 6, 22; 61-72 saep.;
74. I ; 84. 6 ; 85. l ; 94. 8 ; 103.
5 ; 105. 4 ; Fr. 6 (c) 4.
■npiaadai 6. I ; 8. 3, 6 ; 11. 7 ; 15.
11; 25. 3; 29. 3; 33. 7,9,16;
INDEX.
251
34. I, a ; 43. 8 ; 45. 17 ; 49. 9 ;
50.18,19; 51.10; 54.15; 55.
24; 56. 14; 57. 7; 58. 3 ; 59.
8 ; 60. 7 ; 80. 3.
■npiv 56. 13.
TTpoavrjXiaKeLV 53. 25.
upo^arov Fr. 5 {i) 7-
Trpoypafj-ixa 9. 7 ; 37. 6.
■TTpoteiJat 40. 5 i 86. 3.
Trpotcrrai'at 41. 16 ; 43. 3 ; 78. 3.
TTpOKTipvacreLV 53. 4 ; 54. I ; 55. 16 ;
57.8,13; 59.9, 15.
IT poo IV OTTO be Lv 27. 8, 15.
TTpOTTCoATjnKOS 55. 15-
TTpoaayyiXkeLV 56. 9.
TTpoa-a-noTLveLV 50. II ; 52. Ij 25 i ^4-
II.
■npoaiUJ'npaa-cre.w 52. lO ; 93. 7-
'npopi^ei.v 16. 9.
-iTpo(TKe(f>a\aLov 102. 6.
■npoa-Xajxfiaviiv 16. 17.
■jTpo(TiJ,eTpeiv 39. 10.
irpocroSos 3. i; 10. 9 ; 16. 12, 17;
18. 14 ; 21. 16 ; 29. 7.
'irpoaopju(,eiv 99. 4-
TTpoao(f>eL\€iv 19. 1,4, I3-
■npocrraa-crew 41. 23.
■npocrTi.jJ.ov 21. 6.
■nporepov 17. 15 ; 24. 9 ; 32. 6 ; 41.
14; 42. 13; 43.4; 48.5, 14-
■npoTpvyav 26. 11, 17-
-npovirapxeLV 26. I ; 49. 10.
TTpoiTos 26. 13; 34. 21.
wcoA.etz' 2. 2 ; 14. 4 ; 20. 12 ; 33. 4 ;
34. 10; 39. 20; 40. 9,17; 45.
3; 47. 15; 50. 16; 51. 25; 55.
1 ; 57. 3 ; 58. 6 ; 59. 2 ; 60. 13 ;
73. a ; 87. 14 ; 88. 8 ; 91. 2.
pva-is 47. I ; 58. 8; 60. 16.
payi^eiv 42. 19; 84. 2.
(TVVTa^ts 43. 12 ; 47. I ; 48. 13.
avvraffaeiv 19. II ; 21. 5; 32. 10;
41. I ; 47. 5, 13, 15 ; 55. 10 ; 76.
5-
avvTeXeiv 30. 8, TO ; 33, 20 ; 37. 7 ;
41. I ; 106. 2.
avvTr]KeLV 50. 17.
avvTifxav 42. 9.
avvTifJ-i^cns 24. II.
acppayiCew 18. 3, 4 ; 25. 10 ; 26. 8 ;
27.4, la; 28. 7; 29. 9; 42. 15,
18; 90. I.
aMveiv 5. I ; 21. 8 ; 33. 15.
INDEX.
253
^avai. 20. 8 ; 55. 19 ; 56. 7.
(popoXoyia 33. 13, 20.
(popTiov 1. 5; 43. 14; 45. 14; 49.
31 ; 50. 10; 53. 24 ; 54. 23 ; 55.
12.
(jipaCeiv 29. 5-
(pvXaKrj 10. I ; 13. 13.