gelegt auf die letzten Jahre Soters oder die ersten des Philadelphos1), eine Periode übrigens, aus der wir bislang noch wenige Priester mit Namen kennen). Ein solcher Ansatz scheint mit den Buchstabenformen durchaus vereinbar, welche Wilhelm mit denen einer Inschrift aus der Zeit des Philadelphos verglichen hat (Beiträge S. 324).

Wenn also der Erhaltungszustand des Steines auch diesen Darlegungen mehr als den Anspruch auf Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht zubilligt, so hat er uns doch den staatsrechtlich wichtigen Teil des Dekrets bewahrt und damit die Grundzüge der Verfassung Alexandrias wenigstens mit demselben Grade von Sicherheit zu zeichnen erlaubt.

Berlin.

1) Vor Jahr 19, Hathyr (erste Nennung der Kanephore); genauer vor J. 15 (erste Nennung des 'Aigardoos und der Oxoì 'Adeλqoi); s. P.-Wiss.-Kroll VIII S. 1431/2 sub Hiereis, wo ich darauf aufmerksam machte, daß die Einführung des Kanephorats sicher später erfolgte als die Angliederung der 'Adeλgoi, die nach dem neuesten Material sogar noch vor den Tod der Arsinoe angesetzt werden könnte.

2) S. P.-Wiss.-Kroll VIII S. 1439. Ich bemerke, daß ich in unsrer Inschrift bei dem Priester die Nennung des Vaters voraussetze (Tɛ[..........]), beim roauuare's nur die des eigenen Namens (['An]ok2odopov). Denn einmal scheint auch beim notaviç der Vatersname zu fehlen, während er andererseits beim Alexanderpriester gebräuchlich ist.

L. Mitteis und U. Wilcken: Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde1). Besprochen von H. I. Bell und Paul Vinogradoff.

Erster Band: Historischer Teil. Von Ulrich Wilcken.

(1. Hälfte: Grundzüge. 2. Hälfte: Chrestomathie.)

Ever since its publication Wilcken's Griechische Ostraka has been an indispensable vademecum to every student of papyrology. That work approached the subjects with which it dealt primarily, though by no means exclusively, from the side of the ostraca, and moreover the immense accumulation of material since the date of its appearance has inevitably rendered parts of it obsolete. This new publication, the joint production of Wilcken and Mitteis, covers, at least in outline, the whole field of papyrology, and draws its evidence from a far larger number of documents than were available when the Ostraka was published. That it is characterized by profound erudition and acute judgement goes without saying; and it is really amazing what an amount of matter the authors have contrived to pack into a comparatively small space. The book is far more than a mere collection and tabulation of established results; it throws new light on scores of subjects, and includes in the Chrestomathy several previously unpublished texts of considerable importance. As appears from the title, it is divided into two parts, historical and juristic, and each of these is subdivided into two sections, the first (Grundzüge) setting forth in concise form the conclusions to be drawn from the available evidence, the second (Chrestomathie) containing the illustrative texts. The two sections are in each case

1) B. G. Teubner, Leipzig-Berlin 1912.

intended to be used in conjunction, and the chapters of the Chrestomathie correspond with those of the Grundzüge.

As the work thus falls definitely into two parts, Mitteis's volume may be left entirely to Prof. Vinogradoff, who is dealing with the legal bearing of the work, and I propose to confine myself in this notice to Wilcken's portion. It is obviously impossible in the limits of a brief review to deal adequately with a work so rich in material, and all I can do is to indicate the lines which Wilcken's treatment follows and to offer a few remarks on single points.

Wilcken begins his portion of the work with an introduction of 72 pages dealing with what we may call in the widest sense the diplomatic of the subject the script, the punctuation, the abbreviations, chronology, coinage, weights and measures, etc. Much of this covers ground already traversed in the Griechische Ostraka, but the conclusions rest of course on more extensive evidence. This introduction includes an excellent bibliography, giving in each case the method of abbreviated reference employed in this work and by the majority of papyrologists, and containing many publications which have appeared since Wilcken's original list of abbreviated references was given in the Archiv für Papyrusforschung.

In the first chapter of the work itself is given an admirably clear and succinct account of what we may call the political history of Egypt in its main outlines during the period for which the evidence of Greek papyri is available. In the corresponding chapter of the Chrestomathie the first two sections are devoted to texts illustrating respectively external relations and internal disturbances. The small proportion which these bear to the whole mass of published papyri is a striking testimony to a fact which must have struck all students of such records: the small part which history as treated by the average historian plays in the life of mankind. The papyri and the same remark would apply equally to other classes of records, such as English „charters“ are but rarely concerned, even remotely, with the great events of history; their subject matter is the routine life of the ordinary man.

Wilcken's sketch of Egyptian history, tracing the system of government and the mutual relations of the various races within the country, brings before us in vivid outline the whole development, from the introduction of Hellenism to its fall before the Arabs, enabling us to compare the various periods; and the picture it gives is reinforced and confirmed by the other chapters. Under the Ptolemies we find a highly developed bureaucratic system, efficient at first but later falling into disrepair. The Roman conquest brought about a greater centralization and a still further development of the administrative machine. Perhaps never in history till modern times has there been a more elaborate administrature than that of the Romans in Egypt, with its hierarchy of officials and its highly developed system of registers and archives. Characteristic of this period is the introduction and gradual extension of the liturgical system. There was, as Wilcken insists (Grundzüge p. 341 f.), a technical distinction between άozy and λɛitovoyia, honores and munera, but in practice this tended to be obliterated, the dozei becoming as compulsory as the leovoyia. During the Byzantine period we follow the gradual disintegration of the machine established by the Romans, a return to simpler and less systematic forms and an ever increasing inefficiency, met, but not remedied, by a process of decentralization.

In spite of its efficiency it may be doubted whether Roman rule was really a benefit to the inhabitants of Egypt. The judicial system, with its con

ventus at Alexandria, Pelusium, and Memphis, must have been very inconvenient to the inhabitants of Upper Egypt. The taxation tended to become greater, and the liturgies constituted an intolerable burden, which grew continuously greater; indeed Wilcken sums up his admirable chapter on them by remarking (p. 354): Fragen wir zum Schluß, wie das Liturgiesystem gewirkt hat, so müssen wir es als den Totengräber des bürgerlichen Wohlstandes bezeichnen, and regarding the Byzantine period he says: Wenn irgend etwas, so ist dies Liturgiewesen daran schuld, daß wir in unsern Urkunden schließlich fast nur von ganz großen Grundbesitzern oder aber von verarmtem Proletariat hören. It seems clear too, as Wilcken shows, that the grant of a senate to the unrooлóhis was neither in intention nor in effect a boon to the inhabitants but was meant rather, in Wilcken's words, um einen Teil der staatlichen Aufgaben auf die Schultern der Ratsherren abzuwälzen. It is to be noted that Wilcken, probably with justice, calls in question the usual view of Severus's innovation as the introduction into Egypt of the municipal system; it was not till the fourth century, when the nome organization was superseded, that this system was really established.

The Greek cities occupied an exceptional position in Egypt, and Wilcken devotes a special section to them, though the material is unfortunately scanty. It is more abundant for Hadrian's foundation Antinoopolis than for the others, and several texts in the Chrestomathy bear upon this city. There are in the British Museum a number of recently acquired papyri which throw valuable light on its privileges and constitution. I hope later to discuss them in a special article, and this is in any case not the place to deal with them, but one fact may be mentioned. Wilcken raises the question (Grundzüge p. 50) whence the colonists were drawn, and one valuable ineditum in the Chrestomathy (no. 26) shows that some of them came from Ptolemais. The London texts add the fact that others were from the Arsinoite nome, one at least of whom was a Persian τῆς ἐπιγονῆς, though subsequently described as ανδρών Elavov. Thus an acute conjecture of Wilcken's (Chrestom. 29, 3, note) is confirmed. These same texts also contain evidence which seems to throw some doubt on Wilcken's interesting conjecture as to a new settlement at Heliopolis (Grundzüge p. 53, Chrestom. 31). He bases this theory on the fact that in one papyrus (Chrestom. 31) a Mɛupeitηg àñò yvuvaoio(v) describes himself as vios άлoizov Нhiov nóλ(ɛw) and in another (Oxy. IV 719) an applicant to the strategus of Oxyrhynchus calls himself ἄποικος Ἡλίου πόλεως. Wilcken translates άлoizos „Kolonist". Now in a London papyrus dated in A. D. 122 we meet at Arsinoe a certain Heraclides alias Valerius described as a Persian the layovūs, ἀναγραφόμενος ἐπ' ἀμφόδου Ταμείων. In A. D. 132 the same person occurs at Tebtunis. On the 10th Phamenoth, 133, we find him at Arsinoe, still avaygapóuevog ἐπ' ἀμφόδου Ταμείων. But on the 10th Pachon of the same year he makes to the senate of Antinoopolis a return of his two sons (subsequently met with as full citizens, of the Matidian tribe and Callitecnian deme); and in this document he describes himself as 'Αντινο(εὺς), ἄποικος) Αρσινοίτου), ἀνδρῶν Ἑλλήνων; and the same description is given of the three yrwotnoɛs. It is clear that his Antinoite citizenship was recent; and it seems out of the question to suppose that immediately after becoming a citizen he took part in a (hitherto unknown) settlement at Arsinoe. The conclusion must be that the relationship primarily expressed is to Antinoopolis, not to Arsinoe. The words may mean either that Heraclides was a „colonist“ (of Antinoopolis) „from the Arsinoite nome" or that he was a citizen of Antinoopolis residing out of the city", namely „in the

Arsinoite nome". In the latter case it would appear to follow that some of the citizens did not actually settle at Antinoopolis but continued to reside in their former homes, though enjoying the privileges of citizenship. This second explanation is not perhaps the more obvious interpretation of the phrase quoted if taken by itself, but it seems to me the more probable in view of other evidence. The family of Heraclides continued to be associated with the Arsinoite nome, and I strongly suspect that the whole of these papers were found not in the neighbourhood of Antinoopolis but in the Fayum. Moreover, though the sons of Heraclides became full citizens of Antinoopolis and were enrolled, as already said, in the Matidian tribe and Callitecnian deme, Heraclides describes himself merely as 'Avtivoɛis without any mention of tribe or deme. He occurs again in A. D. 144 at Tebtunis and there also is described merely as 'Avtivoɛt. The yvoorηges in the document first mentioned and several other Antinoites residing in the Arsinoite nome who occur in other papyri of the collection have the same description. One may infer that since they continued to reside elsewhere than in the city they had not thought it worth while to enroll themselves in a deme (cf. Schubart, Archiv für Papyrusforschung V, 109); but the fact that the sons of Heraclides were duly enrolled seems to show that Heraclides might also have been had he cared to make application. It is of course possible that in the texts on which Wilcken bases his conjecture aлozoç is used in a different sense. In favour of this supposition may be urged the fact that it would be a curious coincidence, if the primary reference of aлoizos were to the absence of the person so described from his native city, to find that both the persons in question were residing at Heliopolis; and also the fact that if aлozos meant no more than this it would be strange that a person should describe himself as viòç noizov. Certainly however, since лozos is used in a recognized technical sense in the Antinoopolite papyrus (a return to the senate and therefore official in its phraseology), it is natural to suppose that it would have the same sense elsewhere. A mere coincidence such as the occurrence in both cases of Heliopolis, however striking in itself, cannot prove anything; and the phrase viòç άnoizov zth. may have been inserted because the father of the person so described (who was άnò yvuvasiov) was, owing to his non-residence, no longer on the roll of οἱ ἀπὸ γυμνασίου.

In chapter II Wilcken deals with the religious aspect of Egyptian life. His treatment is full of suggestive and illuminating observations; special reference may be made to his insistence on a fact often overlooked in the past, namely that the cult of the Ptolemies as expressed in such titles as Euergetes, etc., is purely Greek, not Egyptian. His remarks have recently been reinforced by Plaumann's demonstration (in Äg. Zeitschr. L, 19 ff.) that the dating clauses of Demotic contracts are in all cases translations from the Greek.

In the short chapter III is summed up what we know of education in its various branches, and Wilcken next passes on to the important question of taxation, sketching in turn the financial organization with its departments and officials, and the methods of assessment and taxation at successive periods. The subjects dealt with are innumerable, and all are discussed with the acuteness, clearness, and astonishing fullness of knowledge which characterize the author. Among these subjects the Bẞ2109ýzy Zyzthбtor is not included; for since, ast Wilcken says (p. 203), ein direkter Zusammenhang zwischen den an die Biß2109ýzy ¿yxthoɛwv gerichteten aлoyqaqai und den Aufgaben der Steuerbehörden ... läßt sich in der Tat nicht erweisen, it seemed to the authors better to relegate the problems

connected with the B2109 to the juristic part of the work, where the whole question of the classes of documents and their execution and preservation is treated by Mitteis.

On p. 232, in dealing with the Arab period, Wilcken rejects the theory advanced by me that the eparchies still continued to exist as official divisions. That in Lond. IV, 1332, 1333 the names may have a merely geographical significance is likely enough; but since in Wiener Studien XXIV, 127 a papyrus of A. D. 699 mentions a dorzì 'Agzadiaç zaì Onaidos it would seem that these old divisions had still some sort of official existence. It may well be, as Maspero suggests (Rev. d. Ét. grecques XXV, 217 f.), that the Dux mentioned in the Aphrodito Papyri was governor of Upper Egypt G ❝vo zóya). That the direct correspondence of the Governor of Egypt with the pagarch disproves the official existence of a larger unit under a Dux seems to me at least not established. Wilcken himself (Chrestom. p. 324) remarks that in the farming out of the taxes in the Roman period the strategus auch hier wie gewöhnlich in diesen Fragen direkt (ohne Vermittlung etwa des Epistrategen) mit dem Präfekten verhandelt. May not the position of the Dux have been somewhat similar to that of the epistrategus? On p. 233 Wilcken argues from the words in Lond. IV, 1332 ἀπὸ ποίου χωρίου καὶ ἐν ποίῳ τόπῳ καὶ ἐν ποίᾳ παγαρχία προσέφευγεν to a Gliederung der Pagarchien in roxo und der tóлoi in qopia. This is an error; the evidence of the Aphrodito Papyri generally shows clearly that the tiлos was a small land-unit within the zooiov. In his introduction to Lond. IV, 1357 (Chrestom. 298) Wilcken rejects my explanation of epizά as - Ezorgcógdiva, ἐκστραόρδινα, taking it as identical with der aus Procop. hist. arcan. 21, 1 bekannten Luftsteuer Justinians. In regard to this it is to be noted, first, that Procopius uses the word in the singular, whereas here it is in the plural, and, second, that the whole phrase answers exactly to the mention of zoroaóodiva elsewhere: Lond. IV, 1357 τῶν χρυσικών δημοσίων . . . καὶ ἀερικῶν καὶ λοιπῶν στίχων: Lond. IV, 1838,5 των χρυσικών δημοσίων καὶ ἐκστραορδίνω(ν) καὶ λοιπών στίχων. I am therefore still inclined to favour the other interpretation.

After this exhaustive treatment of the taxation system Wilcken passes on to trade and manufactures, giving a list of industries which were or have been thought to have been state monopolies, and including in the Chrestomathy a valuable re-edition of the portion of the Revenue Laws relating to the oil monopoly; and he then passes in review in successive chapters land tenures, forced labour and liturgies, the maintenance of the court, officials, and army, the postal and transport system, the army and police, and social life. Space fails me to touch on these questions; it may just be noted, in reference to the problem of oi tis ¿ayoris (p. 384) that Lesquier's recently published Institutions Militaires offers a solution of this vexed question which seems more satisfactory than any yet proposed.

Finally, a few observations may be offered on single points. In a note on Chrestom. 8, 12 Wilcken remarks that the word Basikizhy in the oath formula zeigt, daß die byzantinische Herrschaft damals hier noch bestand. The inference is not necessary, since in Lond. ined. Inv. No. 2017, of the year 647 (facsimile and transcript of a portion in New Pal. Soc. part. X), the same expression Basiliziv Gotypier occurs. In the interesting ineditum 238 Wilcken reads in 1. 11 napapviúše Tε, explaining the first word as „îco̟egriάžci, in futurischem Sinne“. Is it not more likely that we should read πέπεισμαι δὲ (ὅτι) καὶ . . . παραφυλάξετε? In reference to Wilcken's remarks on the Roman census (Grundzüge p. 192 ff.) it