faces of hellenism - Lirias

STUDIA HELLENISTICA 48

FACES OF HELLENISM STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN (4TH CENTURY B.C. - 5TH CENTURY A.D.) edited by

Peter VAN NUFFELEN

PEETERS LEUVEN - PARIS - WALPOLE, MA

2009

2331-09_StHellenistica_48_Voorwerk.indd III

19-10-2009 10:21:59

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter VAN NUFFELEN

1

On Eating Meat and Human Sacrifice. Anthropology in Asclepiades of Cyprus and Theophrastus of Eresus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stefan SCHORN

11

Una noticia olvidada sobre el principio de las Historias de Éforo (Tauro ap. Juan Filópono, Aet. VI 8, p. 147, 17-18 Rabe) . . . . . . . Antonio Luis CHÁVEZ REINO

49

Kleopatra and the Diadochoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander MEEUS

63

The Name Game: Hellenistic Historians and Royal Epithets. . . . Peter VAN NUFFELEN

93

Bilingual Greek-Demotic Documentary Papyri and Hellenization in Ptolemaic Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark DEPAUW

113

‘We Too Are in Good Health.’ The Private Correspondence from the Kleon Archive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bart VAN BEEK

147

The Archive of the Toparch Leon Once Again. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Willy CLARYSSE

161

L’expression ‘ennemi des dieux’: theoisin echthros . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anne-Emmanuelle VEÏSSE

169

2331-09_StHellenistica_48_Voorwerk.indd V

19-10-2009 10:22:00

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Why Tax Receipts on Wood? On Wooden Tablet Archives from Ptolemaic Egypt (Pathyris) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katelijn VANDORPE and Sofie WAEBENS

179

The Border between Egypt and Syria from the 7th Century B.C. until the 7th Century A.D.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Herbert VERRETH

199

Die Beziehung zwischen römischem Bürgerrrecht und alexandrinischem Stadtrecht bis zur Constitutio Antoniniana (212) . . . . . . Gertrud DIETZE-MAGER

217

The ‘Marbre de Thorigny’: Rebellion or Loyalty? . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen HAEGEMANS

277

Hellenism as a Vehicle for Local Traditions in Third-CenturyEgypt: the Evidence from Panopolis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karolien GEENS

289

Know your Classics! Manifestations of ‘Classical Culture’ in Late Antique Elite Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inge UYTTERHOEVEN

321

2331-09_StHellenistica_48_Voorwerk.indd VI

19-10-2009 10:22:00

THE ARCHIVE OF THE TOPARCH LEON ONCE AGAIN Willy CLARYSSE

The archive of the toparch Leon was first edited by C. Bradford Welles and J.A.S. Evans in the Journal of Juristic Papyrology 7-8 (1953-54), 29-70 (= SB VI 9256-9261). When the texts were republished in P. Yale I in 1967 (nos. 36-42), three fragmentary letters were added (P. Yale I 43-45). The papyri derive from mummy cartonnage and were bought by the Beinecke Library from Maurice Nahman in 1935. The correspondence is of some historical interest because it contains an important reference to the ‘sowing scheme’ (diagraf® toÕ spórou), which led to some far-reaching conclusions about the Ptolemaic royal economy1. Its multiple links to the Prosopographia Ptolemaica may interest two of the honorands, whereas the third will perhaps enjoy the echo of literary language in the expression qeo⁄sin ∂xqrov. The editors dated the texts to the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes, in casu to 232-229 B.C., on palaeographical grounds. Since the village of Philadelpheia was mentioned in some of the texts a tentative prosopographical link was established between the toparch Leon (Pros. Ptol. VIII 556a) and the homonymous agent of the oikonomos Hermolaos (Pros. Ptol. I 1110), who was in function at the time of Zenon about 250 B.C. This link was confirmed by R.S. Bagnall, who expanded the archive with four mid third century texts, mentioning Apollonios, Leon and Hermolaos (SB VI 9089-9091, 9103)2. These texts, now in the Bodleian, were extracted from cartonnage found in Philadelpheia by Grenfell and Hunt in 1901. The expanded archive thus contained thirteen texts. The highest ranking official mentioned in the Yale papyri is no doubt the finance minister (dioiketes) Athenodoros (Pros. Ptol. I and VIII 15a). Recently, this person, who was unknown when the archive was first 1 2

For this reason it was discussed by Vidal-Nacquet (1967), 20. Bagnall (1974), 115-120.

2331-09_StHellenistica_48_08.indd 161

19-10-2009 10:44:04

162

W. CLARYSSE

published, has appeared in four new texts, three of which are dated with certainty to the early second century B.C.: SB XX 14659 SB XXII 15536 P. Köln V 221 P. Rainer Cent. 45.1

dated 197 B.C. ca. 197-190 B.C. ca. 190 B.C. no date (cf. BL IX, 223)

It has become clear, therefore, that the earlier palaeographical dating of the Leon archive was wrong and that the toparch Leon was active a generation later than the first editors thought3. As a result the identification of Leon the agent of the oikonomos and Leon the toparch can no longer be maintained. Half a century now separates the archive of the toparch Leon from that of Hermolaos – Apollonios4. Moreover, not all texts published in the Journal of Juristic Papyrology and in P. Yale are clearly part of a single archive. Three letters are addressed to the toparch Leon, who was active in the area of Philadelpheia (P. Yale 36, 38, 42). In one other text Leon acknowledges having received some wine for the Macedonian soldiers in Philadelpheia (P. Yale 37). These four documents constitute the certain core of the archive. The others are highly doubtful: P. Yale 39 is addressed to Dikaios, 40 (mentioning Philadelpheia) to Hermias, 41 is a fragmentary safe-conduct, 43 and 44 are fragments of letters, in which the name of the addressee is not preserved. The editors link the letters through Apollonios, the writer of P. Yale 36, who they think is mentioned in P. Yale 40.7, 41.9-10 and 42.3 (where he is called brother of Leon). But these identifications remain uncertain because of the banality of the name Apollonios. In P. Yale 42, for instance, two different persons with that name are mentioned, one a 3 It is interesting to read the palaeographical commentary by Seider (1990), 305-307. Though he does not question the dating of P. Yale I 36 to 232 B.C., Seider rightly stresses the great difference in style with the writing of the Zenon papyri. 4 For a survey of each of the two archives, see the Leuven Homepage of Papyrus Collections online: http://www.trismegistos.org/ sub archives ‘Leon toparches’ and ‘Hermolaos’. The date of SB VI 9103 should be corrected. On the original in the Bodleian Library I read (∂touv) lh instead of (∂touv) h. The lambda is damaged, but there is sufficient space and there are even some minimal traces of ink. SB VI 9103 therefore belongs to the reign of Ptolemy II and was received on May 28, 248 B.C. In SB VI 9090 the date of reception is Hathyr 10 (i with a line over it, marking the day date) and not Hathyr 3 (g without line). As the letter took ten days to reach Hermolaos, not three, it may have come from Alexandria.


19-10-2009 10:44:04

THE ARCHIVE OF THE TOPARCH LEON ONCE AGAIN

163

brother of Leon, the other an ‘enemy of the gods’, with whom the writer of the letter has a quarrel (see below). P. Yale 40 and 37 also have the name Sarapion in common. The following notes are the result of my rereading the texts. In the case of P. Yale 40 the changes are so fundamental that I have provided a full re-edition, even though I have not succeeded in solving all the problems. P. Yale 40 The writing of P. Yale 40 looks a good deal younger than that of P. Yale 36-38. A date in the middle of the second century seems likely to me5. The personal name Apollonios and the mention of Philadelpheia were used as arguments for attributing the text to the Leon archive, but this seems unwarranted: a batch of Ptolemaic cartonnage papyri from Philadelpheia does not necessarily belong to a single archival unit and Apollonios is the most common Greek name in Ptolemaic Egypt.

5

10

15

[ ].[ [ ] ∂fj parage[nómenon ÂpollÉni]on tòn pròv t±i (ëkatost±i) [kaì (pentjkost±i) t¬n per]ì Fil[a]delfeían tópwn doÕnai aût¬i eîv t®n (pentjkost®n) ∞n sù êzeilßfjiv xalkoÕ (tálanton) a kaì [gr]ácai toútwi ∂xein eîv t®n k[a]qßkousan ânaforon toÕ (talántou) kaì orgilav âpò toÕ Ktj[si]kléouv Üriheúomen mßt’ êntol®n dedwkénai to⁄v perì tòn ÂpollÉnion mßte dÉsin ∏wv toÕ sè paragenésqai. S’ oŒn kal¬v poißseiv êk pantòv trópou êàn dúnjÇ paragenésqai paragenjqeív, ºpwv perì toútwn frontíswmen soÕ paróntov. Fróntison ºpwv sunagoráswmen Hßnwni o˝non

5

In BL VIII, p. 513 a date in the early second century is accepted as part of the new dating of the Leon archive; my proposal to update the text to before 211 B.C. because of the wine prices (P. Thomas, p. 81) is no longer valid because the readings of l.22 ought to be corrected (see below).


19-10-2009 10:44:04

164

W. CLARYSSE

20

palaíou Filadelfeíou o÷nou ke(rámia) q, ºmoion oœ âpésteilav ™m⁄n pérusi (ëzaetoÕv) Æ (pentaetoÕv). verso (along the fibres) Diasáfjson d’ ™m⁄n †tina aï timaí eîsi kaì pósa êt⁄v kaì m® brádu[ne ¿ste] ™m¢v kine⁄n êntaÕqa. ÊpimeloÕ dè kaì sautoÕ ÿn’ ügaínjiv. uspide down (in large letters) Ërmíai ‘- - -. He said that Diodoros the tax farmer of the 1% [and 2%] tax for the area around Philadelpheia has arrived and has given him for the 2% tax which you had undertaken 1 bronze talent, and that he has written to him to hold it (?) for the due instalment of the one talent and - - - from Ktesikles. We think (?) that he did neither give an order to the men of Apollonios nor that he will give it until you have arrived. You then would do well, by all means, to come if you can come, so that we can take care about these matters in your presence. Take care that we buy wine for Zenon, 9 jars of old Philadelpheian wine, similar to the six year or five year old wine you sent us last year. Inform us what the prices are and how much you ask, and do not delay so that we can move here. Look after yourself so that you may be healthy.’ Address: To Hermias

l. 2. I have supplemented the name [ÂpollÉni]on here because the article in tòn ÂpollÉnion (l. 11-12) indicates that this person had been mentioned before. l. 3-5. The tax of 1% and 2% is thus far only attested in the Roman period and in one custom house register from Philadelpheia, dated 132 B.C. (P. Thomas 3). The supplement [kaì (pentjkost±i)] in l.3 is necessary to fill the lacuna and fits the mention of the 2% tax in the next line. l. 8. ânaforon: the editors read ânaforán and this is no doubt what the scribe intended, though the papyrus clearly has an erroneous orthography. l. 9. orgilav. Here the solution still escapes me. l. 9. ktßmatov (edd.) is clearly misread for Ktj[si]kléouv l. 10. Üríheto mén => Üriheúomen. Both Üríheto and Üriheúomen seem to be hapaxes, but mén is out of place here, whereas a first person plural is also found in ll.17, 19 and 21. The translation is a mere guess. l. 13. ∏wv toÕ sè paragenésqai. The first part of the supposed my is lost in a lacuna and though the sigma is somewhat odd, I think it is possible:


19-10-2009 10:44:04


165

the writer is eagerly waiting for the arrival of the addressee, as is clear from ll.14-18, with our new reading in l.18. Therefore se is far more likely than me (in that case êmé would in fact be the normal form). I return to the original reading of the first editor, see JJP 7-8 (1953-1954), 32 in the critical apparatus. l. 18. soÕ grácantov frontie⁄n ºpwv => soÕ paróntov. Fróntison ºpwv. The writing is somewhat crammed at the end of the line, but the reading is not in doubt. For the expression soÕ paróntov, see e.g. P. Cairo Zen. III 59451.20; P. Petrie II 16.15; UPZ I 59.21 (Ptolemaic); BGU I 248.16-17; II 449.7-8; P. Oxy. I 118.10-11 (Roman). l. 21. Instead of the editors’ ömoíwv I read ºmoion, which seems to make better sense. l. 22. ı (draxm¬n) leL => (ëzaetoÕv) Æ (pentaetoÕv). The editors read the symbol after the figure as a half drachma, but the figures do not add up: 9 keramia at 6.5 dr is not 35.5 dr., but 58.5 dr. In fact the large L-shaped symbol stands for ‘year’. But the date of the transaction is already given by pérusi ‘last year’ and it is unlikely that the writer would not remember if ‘last year’ was year 5 or year 6. In my opinion the writer specifies how old the old wine should be: 5 or 6 years. This is one of the rare instances where the exact age of ancient wine is given in a papyrus; cf. Schnebel (1925), 290-292. The ancients were able to keep their good wines for quite long periods, as is clear from Pliny, Naturalis Historia XIV 79 (Greek wines requests 7 years to reach vetustas; cf. also Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae I.27). In Theocritus, Idyll VII 147, XIV 16 and Horace, Odes I 9, four-year old wine is already considered old. As a result of my new reading, however, the text no longer bears a date. P. Yale 42 The papyrus is not easy to read and the following suggestions are often alternatives which to me seem to give a more coherent sense to the text. From a purely palaeographical point of view different readings are equally possible. In l. 9 there seems to be an unexpected allusion to the consultation of an oracle: pròv tòn qéon sunexrÉmjn pollákiv. In their note the editors point out that sugxráomai is not used elsewhere in this sense, but ‘the reading seems certain’. It is not only the verb itself, however,


19-10-2009 10:44:04

166

W. CLARYSSE

which raises doubts, but also the syntax with próv rather than with a dative. Moreover, doubts about the reading remain, both for the word qeón and for sunexrÉmjn, as is clear from the dotted letters, to which should be added the ypsilon of sunexrÉmjn. In fact the reading should be corrected, and Nechtosiris, who is probably in Alexandria, is worried about ‘his brother’ Leon because he has received no news tà katà sè pròv tòn qeo⁄sin êxqròn ÂpollÉni[on] ‘(about) your affair against Apollonios, the enemy of the gods’. For the expression qeo⁄sin êxqrón, with its poetic dative, see the article by M.-E. Véisse elsewhere in this volume (p. 169-177). l. 15-16. ∏wv ≠dj eîv => ¿ste eîv. The reading is uncertain, but ¿ste eîv is a common expression in Ptolemaic papyri, see Mayser (1926), 301-302. l. 20. d¬i => êmoí. Apparently the scribe repeats the personal pronoun which he had already expressed with moi at the beginning of the sentence: exert yourself until they have sent to me and to the slaves the grain to me. The same unnecessary repetition is found in l. 5: oûqém moi parà soÕ tí moi prospefÉnjtai. l. 21. The unusual orthography eîán (for êan)6 can be avoided by reading ofi’ ån âpantßsei = ‘Write to me, without any restraint, what kind of things are happening to you’, as was proposed by Guéraud in the editio princeps (JJP 7-8 (1953-1954), 46). Âpantáw may be used for persons meeting someone or for things happening to a person. Of course âpantßsei stands for the subjunctive âpantßsji, as was already seen by the editors. l. 23 lían => moi. This gives a very straightforward sense: ‘As to my affairs, do not worry. Everything goes well with me’. l. 26-27. The lacuna at the beginning of the line leaves sufficient room to supplement parakatesxé[qjsa]n instead of parakatesxé[qj]n (ed.). This gives better sense: ‘They have been convicted by the chrematists and on this account they (not: I) have been detained by the dioicetes.’ verso l. 2. The signs before the abbreviation for (tálanton) are not really legible, but the figure following (tálanta) is not just a (1) but clearly

6 Mayser (1926), 42 and Mayser (1934), 85 gives only two examples, both very early: P. Eleph. 1 (311 B.C.) and P. Petrie II 4 (2) l.7 (250 B.C.).


19-10-2009 10:44:04


167

Â (1000). Since this affair will be decided by the king himself, it is not surprising that a large amount of tax money is involved7. Moreover, the money is counted according to the copper standard, not the silver standard. P. Yale 38 l. 6 xorjg±[ta]i => xorjgß[sjta]i: frontíhw ºpwv is normally followed by an aorist subjunctive8, and there is sufficient space for four letters in the lacuna. l. 8 kaí moi [grácon ÿna eîd¬] => kaì m® [ãllwv poißsjiv]. After kaí one does not expect enclitic moi, but the full form êmoí. The formula ∂gracá soi ÿna eîd±iv is common, but not the imperative grácon moi ÿna eîd¬. P. Yale 43 (the writing is similar to that of P. Yale 36) l. 8 oînóped[a] => stasin pe.[, no doubt [eîv êpí]stasin, as in l. 20. This was the only papyrological occurrence for the literary word oînópedon. l. 16 êpikomjs.ol[ => êpikop±v . .[ P. Yale 44 ll. 28-29 can be supplied after the example of P. Yale 42 ll. 37-39: tà d’ ãlla êp[imeloÕ toÕ sÉ]matov ºpwv [ügiaínjÇv] SB VI 9103 l. 5 ÿna oŒn m® ên aîtíai [¥iv] => ÿna oŒn m® ên aîtíai [√]. Leon is giving a report to his superior Apollonios and he is afraid that he himself will be accused of negligence, not that Apollonios will get into problems.

7 This passage was rightly quoted by Seidl (1962), 74, as a rare instance where the king himself acted as judge. 8 See the examples given by Mayser (1934), 49.


19-10-2009 10:44:04

168

W. CLARYSSE

Bibliography Bagnall, R.S. (1974), ‘The Toparch Leon and his Archive’, GRBS 15, 115-120. Mayser, E. (1926), Grammatik der griechischen Papyri, II 1, Berlin and Leipzig. Mayser, E. (1934), Grammatik der griechischen Papyri II 3, Berlin and Leipzig. Schnebel, M. (1925), Die Landwirtschaft im hellenistischen Aegypten, Munich. Seider, E. (1990), Paläographie der griechischen Papyri III 1, Stuttgart. Seidl, E. (1962), Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte, Glückstadt, Hamburg and New York. Vidal-Nacquet, P. (1967), Le bordereau d’ensemencement, Brussels.


19-10-2009 10:44:04