part of the collection should be used to elucidate the problems raised by the other, it has been suggested to me that it would be well to publish a preliminary account of the London papyri. Having learnt that the Munich catalogue will probably appear before this article, I thought it advisable to submit my Ms. to the editors of the former; but since the account it contains of the London papyri may be of interest to a wider circle I have been glad to avail myself of the hospitality of Klio, kindly offered me by Prof. Lehmann-Haupt. It is perhaps advisable to call attention to the fact that the numbers cited throughout the article are those of the Museum inventory, not the numbers which the papyri will bear in the catalogue. I should like here to acknowledge my great indebtedness to Prof. Heisenberg for his kindness in sending me descriptions of the Munich papyri and in answering queries on points of detail. He and Prof. Wenger have kindly made some notes on points in this article. The labour of working through the London papyri has been greatly lessened by the fact that provisional transcripts of nearly all of them had been made at the time of their acquisition by Sir Frederic Kenyon. 1. Date and Provenance of the Papyri. The papyri of this collection all belong to the late Byzantine period, and most of them fall within the second half of the sixth century. Unfortunately many of them have lost the beginning, containing the dating clause, so that the exact dates cannot always be determined; but it is clear that they all belong to a period of little over sixty years; the majority form a group confined within still narrower limits of date. In the Munich collection the earliest preserved date is 111) March, 574 (Vorb. p. 7); the latest is 15 Feb., 594. Among the London documents there is a much larger proportion in which the dating clause is preserved. Out of 19 documents preserved in whole or in part 15 have this clause more or less complete. The range of dates is also wider than in the Munich papyri. The earliest is that of Inv. 1793 recto, which runs [ET]à τhr vлatεíav p2(αoviov) [μετ]ὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν Φλαουίου) Βασιλείου 2 τοῦ ἐνδοξοτάτου Μεχεὶρ 9 τῆς δωδεκάτης * ινδικτίων)ο(ς). This is no doubt the first 12th indiction after the consulship, as a document written in the second would presumably bear the Emperor's name as well; and the date is therefore 3 Feb., 549. One other document in the collection is apparently dated in the same manner. This is Inv. 1805, where the clause, though much mutilated, is probably to be read [uetà tỳv ὑπατείαν Φλαουίου Βασ]ιλ[ε]ί[ου τοῦ ἐ]νδοξοτάτου Με]χ[ε]ὶρ [α]* [τῆς Tε]Tágrηs in[di]xti(oros), i. e. Jan.- Feb., 556. τετάρτης 9 Feb., 613 (Inv. 1789). 1 3 The latest date is 1) This is the correct date (15 Phamenoth), not 9 March as in Vorb. (Wenger). One or two points of interest concerning the dates may be mentioned in addition to those already referred to. One document, and only one, is dated by the indiction alone. This is Inv. 1791, an eyyuntizǹ άogážɛiα, where the date comes at the end and is given as Mesore 23, indiction 5. On internal evidence this date is very likely to be taken as 16 Aug., 586 (see below, p. 170). 1 Inv. 1801 is thus dated: [+ Basizing T]ov decorator quor βασιλείας τοῦ θειοτάτου δεσπότου Φλαουίου) Ἰουστί[ν]ου τοῦ αἰωνίου Αὐγούστου 2 [Αὐτοκράτορος ἔτους δω]δεκάτου, τοῖς μετὰ τὴν δευτέραν ὑπατείαν τοῦ αὐτοῦ γαληνοτάτου ἡμῶν [δεσπότου ἔτους δεκάτου], καὶ Φλαουίου) Τιβερίου τοῦ εὐτυχεστάτου καὶ φιλανθρωπωτάτου ἡμῶν Κα[ί]σαρος 4 [? μεγίστου εὐεργέτου] ἔτους τρίτου, Θωθ τ, τῆς ἑνδεκάτης ινδικτίωνος), ἐν Συήνη [= 7 Sept., 577]. There are one or two points to be noted here. The supplement in the first line is a good deal shorter than in those which follow, though the space is the same. Probably the difference is to be accounted for simply by the fact that the cross was rather large, but possibly the scribe may, in accordance with a common custom, have written Baotias nai vлateiαs, perhaps deleting zaì vлatɛias when he added the more exact post-consular dating below. In 1. 3 the reading is not quite certain. In P. Mon. 105 (Vorb. p. 7), dated in 5781), the date is given as the 10th year after the second consulship. On the other hand, in P. Oxy. VII, 1042, also dated in 578, the year is the 11th after the consulship; and this is accepted as correct by P. M. Meyer, P. Hamb. I, 23, 1ff. note. There seems to have been some variation in the usage as to Justin's post-consulate; see Clinton, Fasti Romani, I, 824. In 1. 4 the words ueriorov vegyétov are conjecturally inserted on the analogy of the Munich papyrus just referred to, which has τοῦ φιλανθρωποτάτου καὶ εὐτυχεστάτου τρισμεγίστου εὐεργέτου Καίσαρος. Lastly, Inv. 1802 seems to have a dating clause of the same character as that in P. Flor. 15. The first line is indeed so much rubbed that almost all traces of ink have disappeared in places. It begins almost certainly with μετὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν τοῦ δεσπότου. Above the beginning of this line, on a separate fragment, is the usual cross; and this might suggest that a line had preceded, of which only the cross at the beginning remains; but, in the first place, we should in that case expect μɛτà tηr vaatɛíar τοῦ αὐτοῦ γαληνοτάτου (or a similar word) ἡμῶν δεσπότου, and, in the second, since most of the cross remains, many letters in the lost line ought to be visible, which is not the case. It seems probable therefore that the cross (if the fragment containing it really belongs to this document) 1) In Vorb. p. 8 Wenger's remark on the regnal year is an error; the Byzantine Emperors counted their regnal years from the day of their accession, not from the first Thoth; cf. Wilcken, Grundzüge, p. IX. was written alone at the top of the papyrus; and on the analogy of the Florentine papyrus we may restore μετὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν τοῦ δεσπότου quer P2(coviov) Tovotirov] Þauer[0]9 i.... At the end, [7][s] Ex[T][s] Φλαουίου) τ would suit the traces, and the next line is clear: ivdixtioros v Evýry. ινδικτίονος Συήνη. This reading, if accepted, gives the date 6 March, A. D. 573. The papyri are almost all dated at Syene. In the Munich collection one, P. Mon. 97, was written at Antinoopolis, but since the parties were natives of Syene who happened to be at the moment in Antinoopolis, this document can hardly be regarded as an exception to the statement that all these papyri relate to Syene. A real exception is to be seen in the case of some of the London papyri. The two documents already referred to as the earliest in date of the collection, Inv. 1793 recto and Inv. 1805, come from the neighbourhood of Thebes; and since Inv. 1794, which has lost both beginning and end, resembles 1805 in its formulae and both to some extent in the hand, it seems very likely that it comes from the same district. In 1793 one of the parties lives at Kάoτoov Kɛoaμéos tov Θηβῶν νομοῦ, the other at Κάστρου Μεμνονίων) τοῦ Ἑρμωνθίτου ν[ο]μοῦ; in 1805 two are from Kάotoov [ ], one from [? Κάστρου Μεμνονίζων τοῦ Ἑρμωνθ[ίτ]ου νομού. All these three documents relate to loans, two of them to loans on security; and since the smaller fragments acquired with the collection include several fragments of accounts relating to articles of jewellery pledged as security for loans 1), it seems possible that they too come from the neighbourhood of Thebes, and that the whole of these Theban papyri form part of the papers of a family or families of pawnbrokers or moneylenders. Their presence among the Syene papyri is perhaps to be accounted for by the removal of some member of the family to that place; a supposition somewhat supported by the fact that the two dates preserved are both earlier than the earliest date found in the papyri written at Syene 2). 2. Parties to the Documents. A number of the London papyri concern the Patermuthius son of Menas and his brother-in-law John son of Jacob with whom Wenger's Vorbericht (p. 13 ff.) has made us acquainted. Several facts as to this family are revealed by the London papyri in addition to those already known. In the first place, a conjecture of Wenger's (Vorb. p. 12) as to the identity of this Jacob father of John with the Jacob son of Dius of P. Mon. 96 is confirmed. The latter is described as z лaτyos Aiov tov zai Пlaoagari; and in Lond. Inv. 1797 mention is made (the document is 1) Cf. too the account on Inv. 1793 verso, published at the end of this article. 2) For Inv. 1803 (b), another papyrus which probably comes from some other place than Syene, see below, section 3. addressed to Patermuthius and his wife Kako) of τοῦ ἀκκουβίτου Ἰακώβου Πασαραϊτός σου δὴ πατρὸς Κακὼ καί σου δὴ Πατερμουθίου πενθερού. The genealogy of the two families is then as follows: = Tlou Jacobus (dead on 22 Aug., Α. D. 585 πρὸ ὀλίγων ἡμερῶν) Fl. Johannes Aur. later Fl. Patermuthius Aur. Kako Patermuthius was, as we learn from several documents, a sailor by profession, and a native of Syene, but he became a soldier of the numerus of Elephantine. At what date he entered the army can be determined only roughly and by inference. In Lond. Inv. 1797, of the reign of Tiberius (A. D. 578-582), he appears as Aur. Patermuthius, of Syene. In Inv. 1796, of A. D. 583-4, be is still Aurelius, and is described merely as a sailor. In Mon. 97, of 23 June, 583, he is also Aurelius (Vorb. p. 13). In Inv. 1787, of 12 March, 584, he is again Aurelius and a sailor, and this is still the case in P. Mon. 98, dated 30 May, 585 (Heisenberg). On the other hand, in Inv. 1790, of 22 Aug., 585, he is Flavius Patermuthius, soldier of the numerus of Elephantine, and so he appears henceforth1). Consequently, the date of his entry into the army must fall between 30 May and 22 Aug., 585. There is indeed one papyrus which at first sight suggests an earlier date. This is Inv. 1803 (a)2), a very fragmentary document dated in the 7th year and 3rd of the [post-consulate] of an Emperor whose name is lost, but who must, from the conjunction of these two systems of reckoning, be Tiberius), that is, the year 580-581, or, if the consular reckoning is strict 4), 581. The first line of the body of the document reads, in its present mutilated state, ἐκ πατ]ρὸς Μηνᾶ το[υ] καὶ λεγομένου Βηντέ, and the second do]uov Zvýrys zt2. In a subsequent fragment, occur the words ὁμολ]ογῶ ἐγὼ ὁ προγεγραμμένος Πατερμούθιος, from which it is clear that in the first line (aotos) Пlatεquorios must be read before iz лargós. It might therefore be thought that this is the Patermuthius who occurs so often in these papyri, and it would follow that he was a soldier as early as 581: but since this is contrary to all the other evidence, and the name Brré is not elsewhere recorded for his father, and since moreover, as Prof. Heisenberg points out to me, Patermuthius is elsewhere 1) Except in Inv. 1791 mentioned below (p. 165). 3) Tiberius counted his regnal years from his proclamation as Caesar in 574; cf. P. Lond. 774, III. 280. 4) The post-consular reckoning was usually made to synchronize with the regnal years throughout; cf. P. Cairo Byz. 67151, 3, note, 67159, 1, note. of the numerus of Elephantine, whereas this person belongs to that of Syene, it may be taken as quite certain that he is not identical with the Patermuthius under discussion. Inv. 1797, where the dating clause is lost but in which the oath is by Tiberius, shows that Patermuthius and Kako were married at least as early as 582; and the character of the agreement in Inv. 1796 (see below, section 6) suggests that their marriage may have been recent when that document, dated 583-4, was drawn up. The various purchases of house property made by Patermuthius and the loan advanced by him in 586 (P. Mon. 99) to his mother-in-law indicate that he was in fairly flourishing circumstances; but there is some reason to suppose that later in life he may have been less prosperous. In Inv. 1788 (A. D. 611) he and Kako are found borrowing 4 solidi from a sailor of Syene; and in the latest document of the collection, Inv. 1789, dated in 613, Patermuthius, unaccompanied by his wife, borrows 31 solidi from the same person, pledging as security some articles of copper (opizazzos). The fact that his wife does not appear in this document may possibly be due to the fact that she had died in the interval. 3 One other point in connexion with Patermuthius must be noted. In Inv. 1791, which is dated in Mesore of the 5th indiction, he is described as Fl. Patermuthius (MS. IIa.), soldier of the numerus of Philae, and a sailor. Since he is a soldier this document must be at least as late as 585. That the 5th indiction is the year 586-587 is suggested by the fact that the document concerns an arbitration by Marcus, who may very likely be the same as the Marcus 6702cotizós who acts as arbitrator in P. Mon. 103, of the year 583 (Vorb. p. 16f.). Now in 585, as we have seen, Patermuthius was already a soldier of the numerus of Elephantine, and so he appears in all later documents, down to 613. We cannot therefore suppose that he was first assigned to the numerus of Philae and later transferred to that of Elephantine, and if the document is not to be dated later than 613 (the earliest possible date would then be 616), which seems unlikely, the most probable explanation is that Por is merely a scribe's blunder1). As regards John, the brother-in-law of Patermuthius, it may be noted that in Inv. 1792 he is described as στρατιώτης) τείρων λεγι[ώνο]ς [ons. The date of the document is 8 March, 584 or 5852), and at 1) It is, however, possible, since his mother's name is not given, that this is the Patermuthius son of Menas of Inv. 1803 (a) (above, p. 164), who had perhaps been transferred from the numerus of Syene to that of Elephantine. But that Patermuthius is not, in Inv. 1803 (a), described as a sailor. 2) The doubt is due to an inconsistency in the dating clause. The regnal year is the 3rd and the indiction the 2nd. One must be wrong, since March of the 3rd year of Maurice fell in the 3rd indiction. |