different ways of electing. Moreover our papyrus seems to prove that the subordinate functionaries (γραμματεῖς, βοηθοί, χειρι oral) of the liturgs also were nominated by the same phylarchs (Oertel 1. 1. 418 was of different opinion) who fix the salary and pay beforehand to the functionary out of a sum received from the practor just elected. L. 7/8 Schub. supposes 'Eq[uo лolews (we thought of 'О§vovy xov лólews). L. 11 cp. the declaration of a tax-collector in P. Oxyrh. 1196 (A. D. 211/2): IItoλlãs ... ảñò Οξυρύγχων πόλεως εἰσδοθεὶς ἅμα ἄλλοις ὑπὸ τοῦ νυνὶ τῆς αὐτῆς πόλεως ἀμφοδογραμματέως εἰς πρακτορείαν σειτικῶν μητροπολειτικῶν λημμάτων, etc. L. 10 αναδιδόναι is the proper word for nominating these officials, cp. P. Oxyrh. 82 (3rd cent.), a declaration on oath by a strategus: ὥστε καὶ τὰς ἀναδόσεις τῶν λειτουργῶν ποιήσασθαι; on διδόναι οι αναδιδόναι ep. moreover Oertel 1. 1. 199. L. 17 oaλágiov, also in P. Fayûm 35, 5 (A. D. 150/1) ὑπὲρ σαλαρείου (Wilcken, Chrest. no. 264; σαλάρειον oyúviov); cp. ib. 34 and P. Lond. 255, 306. In 1. 4 Schubart conjectured έлoíŋoav, in 1. 8 he read oɛμvo[tátns, in 1. 9 he supposed Αὐρ. Ισ] χυρίωνι, 1. 10 πόλεως. ἐπεὶ] (a little too long for the space), 1. 12 he reads vt. vov and takes this for the name of a village. Ll. 15-23 we have copied mostly as prof. Schubart has read them and with his supplements. L. 26 Az is also Schubart's reading. = If the restitution in l. 14 hits the mark, it is very characteristic of the decay of literary culture that the practor nominated is himself an analphabet. Oslo. |