P.Ross.Georg. 3 1 3rd c., prov. unknown.

In this letter, medical doctor Marcus updates his mother Antonia and other relatives on some military events and gives instructions regarding various matters. It has been assumed that Marcus wrote from Alexandria

Roberts (1950: 112) linked the two letters P.Ross.Georg. 3 1 and 2 to the events around 270: the attacks of the Marmarides and the invasion of the Palmyrenes under Zenobia.

but there is no indication of that in the text. He reports about a battle in which fifteen equites singulares where killed. However, the battle could have taken place anywhere in Egypt. The letter P.Ross.Georg. 3 2.22, sent by Marcus’ brother Serenus, implies that they both live in a village, but it is not known how much time passed between these two letters. Another geographical indication in the first letter can be found in ll.15–16, Marcus speaks about his travels; he could not reach the land of a certain Cassianus who asked him to write about ‘the city’: καὶ γὰρ ἐξερχόμενος Κα[σ]σιανὸς ἐνετίλατό μοι γρά|ψαι αὐτῷ τὰ περὶ τῆς πόλεως [ἐ]κ <κ>υνου καὶ ὁ ἄρτος εἰ ἀναρπάζεται.

Fig. 1: P.Ross.Georg. 3 1, line 16

The editors understood the text after a small lacuna in l. 16 as ἐκ κοινοῦ, meaning ‘in general’: Bei seinem Aufbruch hat mir ja auch Kassianos den Auftrag gegeben, ihm über die Stadtangelegenheiten insgemein zu schreiben und ob das Getreide geraubt wird.

Other scholars followed this interpretation in their discussions and translations.

E. g. Hirt Raj 2006: 336, au sujet des affaires de la ville en general.

Roberts was convinced that Marcus wrote from Alexandria where granaries were looted because of general unrest. Hirt Raj observed that the city in the letter could be any other Egyptian city.

Hirt Raj 2006: 153–154.

The reading of Zereteli and Jernstedt is problematic. Ιt is not attested in this meaning in papyri or literary texts; there is not enough space for an epsilon in the lacuna; and the letter after nu is rather an omega than an omicron. It might be better to read Κ̣υνῶγ, l. Κυνῶν, where gamma is written instead of nu before the word beginning with a velar stop, as a hypercorrection.

See Gignac I, 167 (no. 3).

The passage of text with the new reading is now: ... τὰ περὶ τῆς πόλεως Κ̣υνῶγ, (l. Κυνῶν) καὶ ...

The place, therefore, is either the village Kynon Polis in the Fayum (TM Geo 1195), or one of the two cities named Kynopolis in Lower or Upper Egypt. The peculiar word order has parallels in P.Ryl. 2 119.1 https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.ryl;2;119 (62–66, Hermoupolis Magna) and P.Lond. 5 1678 .2 (566–568, Antinoopolis). The village in the Arsinoite was called κώμη Kυνῶν πόλις or κώμη Kυνῶν, so a confusion is possible: BGU 13 2252.4–5 (330, Kynopolis, Arsinoite), P.Oxy. 51 3602.23 (215, Arsinoite). An argument for the location in Upper Egypt is possibly supported by l. 13 where a Theban man is mentioned.

Another problematic place is l. 23:

ἐὰν μή σοι ἦν ἐκεῖνος, πειρῇς δοῦσα̣ τ̣ὸ̣ν σεῖτ[ο]ν.

Fig. 2: P.Ross.Georg. 3 1, line 23

Zereteli – Jernstedt translated the clause thus: Wenn er dir nicht zur Verfügung stehen wird, so mache den Versuch mit der Veräusserung des Getreides. However, the verb πειράω is used in papyrus documents in medial form and never with a participle.

This grammar irregularity has been pointed out by Jan Shavrin in his MA thesis.

Palaeographically, it is better to read πλήρης instead. Although eta has more often a different shape in this handwriting, the ductus here occurs also in μη in the same line, ἐὰν μή σοι ἦν. The adjective is used in an adverbial meaning ‘in full’ and is indeclinable. It must go with the grain – give or sell all of the grain, but the meaning of the sentence remains elusive.

Fig. 3: P.Ross.Georg. 3 1, line 23

P.Ross.Georg. 3 9 2nd half of 4th c., Memphis.

This is a polite letter from a Christian Marcianus to his business partner and friend Isak who is in Memphis. Isak is told to receive pepper, some beans, apparently sent by Marcianus (ll. 14–17), and the payment, also from Marcianus, for palm wine (ll. 17–19), which he already sent or is about to send to Marcianus (ll. 24–25).

In l. 8, the editors read Σ̣[ε]λευίου, which is a ghost name and should be corrected to Φ̣λαυίου. Elsewhere, epsilon is written differently, especially with a following ypsilon, and the traces around the lacuna look more like a phi. The latter does not have a connecting stroke to the right, whereas lambda tends to have its upper hook extended horizontally to the left. Although it is unusual to have the name Flavius on its own, it occurs as such in O.Bodl. 2 2141.7 (3rd/4th c., Thebes); Ο.Douch. 5 546.3 (4th c., Kysis, Oasis Magna); PSI 15 1558.1 (3rd c., Oxyrynchus), and SB 14 11490.1 (2nd/3rd c., prov. unknown), of which the last two examples are letters. The author of the letter under discussion has himself a Latin name.

Fig. 4: P.Ross.Georg. 3 9, line 8

In ll. 17–20, the editio princeps has the following text and translation:

καὶ τίμημα σπαθίτου οἴνου χρυσίνων τεσσάρων διζότων παλεοχαράκτων ἵνα προτρέψῃ μαι ἐν τούτῳ πυκνῶς τῇ λογιότητί σου γράφιν ἐξερέτως περὶ τῆς ὑγίας σου.

18 l. διζῴδων παλαιοχαράκτων 19 l. με 20 l. γράφειν, ἐξαιρέτως, ὑγιείας

…und den Preis Spathion-Weines in der Höhe von vier zweifigurigen Goldmünzen alter Prägung, damit du mich hierdurch bewegest, deiner Gelahrtheit (sic!) häufig zu schreiben, insonderheit bezüglich deiner Gesundheit.

The editors understand σπαθίτου as a form of the measure σπαθίον, but this variation does not occur elsewhere in papyri or other texts in Greek and is unexplainable as a mistake. Moreover, it would be highly unlikely that the writer repeated the same mistake twice, also in ll. 24–25: πόσους σπαθίτας τοῦ χρυσίνου ἀπέστιλάς μοι. Naldini in his collection of Christian letters from Egypt translates σπαθίτου οἴνου as palm-wine.

Naldini 1968: n. 77 p. 306: E il prezzo del vino di palma di quattro aurei a due facce antico conio, perché tu mi spinga così a scrivere spesso alla tua saggezza, particolarmente intorno alla tua salute. However, he understands σπαθίτας in l. 24 as a mistake for σπάθια.

It is well-attested as a pharmaceutical ingredient in literary texts, although there is no other mention of palm-wine in papyri.

Examples of palm-wine as an ingredient in ancient medical recipes are collected in Sonina 2023: 87–89.

Grammatically, σπαθίτης is a noun, which can be seen in the word order. The phrase in l. 24 should be translated as ‘how many units of palm-wine…’.

The text as it is understood by the editors and Naldini has further problems. In ll. 17–18, Marcianus tells Isak to receive four solidi as the payment for wine, but, in l. 24, he wants to know how much wine was sent to him for one solidus. Furthermore, it is odd that the next sentence starts with ἵνα, although there is no causal relation between the two requests. The request in ll. 19–20 cannot in any way be connected to Isak receiving the goods and the money. The imperative ἵνα, although it can be used independently from a governing verb, still requires some sort of logical relation to the preceding sentence or to the general situation and usually appears in a clause; it never introduces a completely new idea.

Mandilaras 1973: 262–264.

I would like to suggest a new reading that solves these problems. The first letter of the first word in l. 19 is in fact an epsilon, not iota. (The long descender between the rounded first part of the epsilon and the nu, written with a slight slant, is in fact a crack in the papyrus, not ink.) The epsilon + nu resembles the same combination at the end of l. 11. An iota would be expected to be longer, projecting below and above the line and slightly concave to the right, not to the left.

Fig. 5: P.Ross.Georg. 3 9, line 19

Fig. 6: P.Ross.Georg. 3 9, line 11

The numeral ἕνα agrees with χρύσινων, which has a misspelled acc. sg. ending (instead of χρύσινον). The phonetic variation ο/ω occurs in the papyrus in the same line (δίζοτων, l. δίζῳδον, ‘with images on both sides’) and also in l. 25 (καταξίοσον, l. καταξίωσον). The remaining adjectives are also misspelled with omega instead of omicron and agree with χρύσινον. The only problem in this case is τεσσάρων. I believe that it is a colloquialism instead of longer and rare τετραγραμμιαῖον and should be probably understood as τεσσάρων γραμμάτων. The golden four-gram weight solidus was introduced under Constantine and began to be widely used in transactions from 350 onwards.

See Bagnall and Bransbourg 2019.

Its weight is referred to explicitly in two documents dated to the 4th c. and in one later document dated to 7th c. from Palestine:

P.Flor. 1 95.10 (4th c., Hermoupolis Magna), χ̣ρ̣υσοῦ νομισμάτια δεσποτικὰ τετραγραμμιαῖα ἑβδομηκονταδύο BGU 1 316.15–16 (359, Ascalon), χρυσ[ίνων] δεσποτικῶν τετραγραμμιαίων διζῴδων δέκ[α ὀκτώ] P.Ness. 3 46.3–4 (605), χρύσινα δεσποτι̣κ̣ὰ̣ ὀμβρυζα̣ τετραγραμμιαῖα προτῖα δόκιμα τὸν̣ ἀ̣ριθμὼν ἐννέα παρὰ κεράτια ἐννέα ζυγῷ Γάζης

The characteristic ‘two-imaged’ occurs in three fourth-century papyri – two contracts of money loan, and a model contract for money loan in a textbook for business education:

Loan of money, P.Lips. 1 13.9–10 (366, Hermoupolis Magna), χρυσοῦ νομισμάτια δεσπ[ο]τικὰ [εὐ]χάρακτα δίζῳδα δύο. Loan of money, P. Gen. 1(2) 12.12–14 (384, Philadelphia), χρυσίου δοκ[ί]μου δ̣ίζοͅτων νο[μι]σματίων ἕν. Model contract for money loan, P. Math. A1 R 3–4 (2nd half of 4th c., Oxyrhynchite), χρ\υσ/οῦ νομισμάτιαν ε[ὐχάρακτον] δίζ̣ῳτον ἕν.

The word order, where the number of solidi is placed after the modifying adjectives also speaks against the reading of ed.pr.

The passage is to be understood as follows. Isak purchased some palm-wine for Marcianus and informed the latter that the cost was one solidus. Marcianus, while still waiting for the wine to be delivered, sent the said one solidus with his servants to Isak and asked to clarify how much wine he should expect (in ll. 24–25).

The following phrase in ll.19–20 needs to be revisited as well. It serves as a polite conclusion of the main part of the letter. The expression ἐν τούτῳ summarises the business relationship and exchanges of favours between Marcianus and Isak. The reading of προτρέψῃ in ed.pr. as 2nd sg. has no parallels in other papyrus letters. The verb προτρέπομαι introduces a polite and urgent request to do something, for instance, to come or to write a letter. It would be absurd for Marcianus to ask Isak to ask himself (Marcianus) to write to him (Isak) enquiring about his (Isak’s) health. On the other hand, a polite request, addressed to the receiver at the end of the letter, to write frequently about their health is standard in letters, e.g.:

P. IFAO 2 15.4–5 (3rd c., prov. unknown), προτρέπομαί σε ἐ̣π̣[ιστέλλειν] μοι περὶ τῆς ὑγείας σου. PSI 12 1247 V 4–8 (3rd c., Oxyrhynchus), γράφω … προτρεπομένη ὑμᾶς γράφειν μοι συνεχῶς περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν. SB 4 7335.6–7 (117–138, Soknopaiou Nesos ?), προτρέπομαί σε γράψαι μοι ἥιδιστα ποιήσοντι.

It is difficult to pinpoint the logic behind the wrong spelling in προτρεψημαι. Some examples of o > η in papyri are collected in Gignac 1976: 293.

The erroneous dative of τῇ λογιότητι is perhaps the result of the similarity in pronunciation with the accusative – nu at the end of the word tended to fall out – combined with the rarity of the word λογιότης: it is not attested in accusative in papyri and is used in dative in a total of eight out of ten texts, including this letter. Its position far from the verb προτρέπομαι in the sentence could have also contributed to the confusion of cases, and it is possible that the presence of the verb γράφειν automatically prompted the dative case, even though the relation between the subject and object is the opposite here.

The new text and translation would be, as follows:

καὶ τίμημα σπαθίτου οἴνου χρύσινων τεσσάρων δίζοτων παλεοχάρακτων ἕ̣να. προτρέψημαι ἐν τούτῳ πυκνῶς τῇ λογιότητί σου γράφιν ἐξερέτως περὶ τῆς ὑγίας σου.

18 l. χρύσινον τεσσάρων (scil. γραμμάτων) δίζῳδον παλαιοχάρακτον 19 l. προτρέψομαι vel προτρέπομαι l. τὴν λογιότητα 20 l. γράφειν, ἐξαιρέτως, ὑγιείας

[… in Memphis please order your servants to receive …] and the cost of palm-wine – one two-imaged old-minted solidus of four grams. In such circumstances, I urge Your Learnedness to write frequently, above all, about Your health.

In the final greeting, Marcianus wishes Isak to lead an εὐπετῆ βίον (l. 22), according to the text of the editio princeps. However, the papyrus reads εὐτελῆ.

I am thankful to Nikolaos Gonis for this correction.

Neither adjective occurs in this context. In Byzantine private letters, εὐτελής and εὐτέλεια are used as self-deprecation: ‘my poor letter’, ‘my insignificance’, e. g. P.Michael 38.12 (6th c., prov. unknown); P.Oxy. 8 1165.4,8 (6th c.); P.Bodl. 1 69.1 (6th–7th c.); P.Gen. 4 168.2 (6th–7th c., Apollonopolis Magna); P.Oxy. 59 4006.6 (6th–7th c.); P.Apoll. 36.4 (713?). In the 4th c., this adjective had not yet acquired this pejorative sense. In literary texts in combination with βίος, it tends to mean ‘simple’ with positive connotations: D.L.6.22; Ath.1.15; and especially about Jesus, Chrys. hom. 62.45.

Finally, the editors signal the change of hand in ll. 21–25. Although the concluding greetings and the postscript are indeed written in a slightly more cursive way and the handwriting is smaller than in the main body of the letter, the ductus is the same and these lines were written by the same person as the main body of the letter. There is also a slight confusion with the numbering of these lines. The greetings starting with υγιενα continue in the same line 20, whereas the postscript is divided in two lines which is not reflected in the ed.pr.: in fact, -τιλάς μοι is written in the next line (l. 25) and is shifted to the right.

P.Ross.Georg. 3 10 4th/5th c., prov. unknown. Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts, Archive G. Zereteli N 246.

In l. 2, Ψεράκου is a ghost name. It should read Ἱεράκου, with a trema on both sides of the hasta of the iota. The genitive is unusual and not attested elsewhere, being a mixture between Ἱέρακος and Ἱερακίου. The name on the verso is illegible in the present state of the papyrus.

Fig. 7: P.Ross.Georg. 3 10, line 2

In l. 19, Zereteli – Jernstedt read Ῥεάκων̣, which is in fact a ghost name. Instead, the papyrus has Ἴσακων̣, l. Ἴσακον, with a trema on both sides of the hasta of the iota.

Fig. 8: P.Ross.Georg. 3 10, line 19

The sigma in l. 23 is peculiar, but common for this papyrus. Cf. l. 23 ἡσᾶς.

Fig. 9: P.Ross.Georg. 3 10, line 23

P.Ross.Georg. 3 11 2nd half of 4th c., prov. unknown. State Hermitage Museum, Ancient Orient Department, 5659.

This letter is a brief business note from Silvanus to his mother, in which he asks her to give back to Pasiris a tunic, which had evidently been deposited by him as a pledge for wine.

In the beginning, Ἀναστασαρ(ίῳ) is a ghost name (Fig. 10). It should be read instead as ἀποστασαρ( ), resolved as ἀποστασαρ(ίῳ) or ἀποστασαρ(ίᾳ). The name of the profession ἀποστασάριος, cellar-keeper, occurs in several papyri and ostraca dated to 5th–6th c.: P.Col. 10 292.5 (Oxyrhynchus); P.Wash.Univ. 2 99.1 (Oxyrhynchus); and SB 12 10990, nn. 16–26 (Abu Mina). It is derived from ἀπόστασις, storehouse, wine cellar.

P.Oxy.16.2044.15–16 (6th c.), P.Oxy.18 2197.64,164 (6th c.); Husson 1983: 41–42.

From the layout, it can be suggested that the first line was added by the writer above the line later, as something he initially forgot to include in the greeting: τῇ κυρίᾳ μου μητρὶ \ἀποστασαρ(ίᾳ)/  ‘to my lady, mother, cellar-keeper’. It looks similar to the insertion of τῷ Πασῖρι (or τῷ πατρί?) in l. 10, which was apparently added for clarification above τῷ αὐτῷ. The new interpretation shifts the numbering of the lines. In the discussion below, new line numbers are given. If my interpretation is correct, this is the first case of a female cellar-keeper.

Fig. 10: P.Ross.Georg. 3 11, line 1

In l. 3, the editors read κολοβιω, l. κολόβιον, but in my opinion the regular version κολόβι̣ο̣ν̣ can be seen on the papyrus. The left hasta of the nu is slightly abraded on top, and the right one is written as in Σιλβανός.

Fig. 11: P.Ross.Georg. 3 11, line 3

In l. 6, the editors read τω, l. τοῦτο. It would be a peculiar mistake; furthermore, the first sign does not resemble other taus in the text. Instead, I suggest interpreting it as the symbol for talents: (ταλάντων) ω. This line hence gives not only the quantity of the wine but also its price. 800 talents (=120 myr. den.) for 8 (in case didiploun was the same measure as diploun) or 16 (if it was equivalent to two dipla) sextarii of wine

Alternatively, one diploun could measure also 4 1/2, 5, 6, or 7 .

is a rather low price that indicates the dating in the second half of the 4th c. The tunic that was given as pledge for the wine would cost much more.

See Morelli 2019: 30.

In l. 7, αὐτή of the ed.pr. should be αὐτά.

Fig. 12: P.Ross.Georg. 3 11, lines 6–7

In l. 8, Παχύμιο\ς/ should be read as Παχυμίου. Cf. οἴνου in l. 5 and μου in l. 1.

Fig. 13: P.Ross.Georg. 3 11, lines 8–10

P.Ross.Georg. 3 15 6th c., prov. unknown. Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts, Archive G. Zereteli N 247

The author of the letter, Horigenes, must be employed at some administrative office, since he is supposed to get synetheia, an annual bonus usually paid to provincial officials, and writes to singularii as his superiors.

Fournet 2016.

Α certain Horigenes, tractator, receives synetheia in a document belonging to Dioskoros’ archive (P.Cair.Masp. 1 67058 Col. 3.3) and could be the same person. Together with the mention of singularii, who occur frequently in the archive, this could be an argument that the letter belongs to Dioskoros’ milieu as well. Among Zereteli’s collection in Tbilisi, there are several documents from the archive of Dioskoros, including P.Ross.Georg. 3 16, 38, 41, 43–45, 48, and 5 9, 32, 35, 62.

In l. 1, π(αρά) in the middle of the line was not reported by the editors. This conventional sign written in the papyrus as a large letter pi crossed out diagonally is common for headings of Byzantine letters. The new reading shifts the numbering of lines.

Fig. 14: P.Ross.Georg. 3 15, line 1

In the address on the verso (l. 7), the editors read:

θαυμασ(ιωτάτοις) [καὶ] ἐναρ(έτοις) μ[o]υ ἀδελφ(οῖς) [NN καὶ]

θαυμασ, εναρ pap.

However, the abbreviations have in fact double letters:

θαυμασ(ιωτάτοις) κ̣[αὶ] ἐναρ(έτοις) ἀδελφ(οῖς) ca. 13 [ καὶ]

θαυμασσ̣, εναρρ, αδελφφͅͅ pap.

Above the first rho in εναρρ there is a sinusoidal line that marks the abbreviation and above the second rho is another, even longer sinusoidal line. The latter was understood by the editors as a supralinear ypsilon. The top of the second rho is abraded and for this reason this letter was read by the editors as a long-legged mu.

The traces of the first name after the abbreviations could read Π̣λ̣ά̣τ̣ω̣ν̣ε̣ι̣. In the following line 8, the profession of Ioannes, ἀννονι[ of ed.pr. is not compatible with the traces. One can read with some certainty only three letters: ̣ιγο ̣ ̣ ̣ [.

Fig. 15: P.Ross.Georg. 3 15, lines 7–8

P.Ross.Georg. 3 18 7th c., Arsinoite. State Hermitage Museum, Ancient Orient Department, 13500.

The author of the letter expresses deep concern about their daughter and asks comes and chartularius Menas to send her to the author in the Arsinoite.

The traces of letters in the first half of l. 6 are left untranscribed in the edition:

κα  ̣[  ̣  ̣]λ[  ̣]  ̣  ̣[  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣]δ̣[  ̣  ̣]ς

One may attempt to read these as κατ̣α̣π̣λ̣έ̣ο̣υ̣[σ]α̣ν̣ κ̣α̣τ̣ὰ̣ τ̣[ά]χ̣[ο]ς.

Fig. 16: P.Ross.Georg. 3 18, line 6

In the address on the verso, κόμητι καὶ χ  ̣  ̣  ̣ (l. 13) should be read as κόμητι καὶ χα̣ρ̣τ̣(ουλαρίῳ).

The following line 14 is read as εδω  ̣  ̣  ̣ in ed.pr. It might contain the name of the sender, which is probably Ἐδωξ̣ί̣α̣, l. Εὐδοξία. If this reading is correct, we have an addition to the corpus of letters whose authors are women.

Fig. 17: P.Ross.Georg. 3 18, line 14

Bagnall, R.S., and G. Bransbourg (2019) “The Constantian Monetary Revolution,” ISAW Papers 14. Chepel, E. (2019) “Arthur Hunt’s Corrections to P. Ross.Georg. III in an Unpublished Letter to Petr Jernstedt,” ZPE 211: 184–188. Fournet, J.-L. (2016) “Un reçu pour la synêtheia du tribun d’Antaioupolis provenant des archives de Dioscore d’Aphrodité (VIe s.),” in Ch. Freu, S. Janniard, and A. Ripoll (eds.), Libera curiositas: Mélanges d’histoire romaine et d’Antiquité tardive offerts à Jean-Michel Carrié. Turnhout: 91–96. Gignac, F.T. (1976) A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Vol. I. Phonology. Milan. Hirt Raj, M. (2006) Médecins et malades de l’Égypte romaine. Étude socio-légale de la profession médicale et de ses praticiens du Ier au IVe siècle ap. J.-C. Leiden – Boston. Husson, G. (1983) “Oikia.” Le vocabulaire de la maison privée en Égypte d'après les papyrus grecs. Paris. Mandilaras, B.G. (1973) The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri. Athens. Morelli, F. (2019) I prezzi dei materiali e prodotti artigianali nei documenti tardoantichi e del primo periodo arabo (IV ex.–VIII d.C.). Berlin/Boston. Naldini, M. (1968) Il Cristianesimo in Egitto. Lettere private nei papiri dei secoli II–IV. Firenze. Roberts, C.H. (1950) “An Army Doctor in Alexandria,” in S. Morenz (ed.), Aus Antike und Orient. Festschrift Wilhelm Schubart. Leipzig: 112–115. Sonina, A.E. (2023) “A New Look at Markianos’ Letter to Isak (P. Ross. Georg. III 9),” [in Russian] // Egypt and neighbouring countries 3 (2023): 84–93.