An 8th-Century Heracleopolite <emph rend="italics">compromissum</emph> from the Bodleian LibrarySophieKovarikUniversität Wiensophie.kovarik@univie.ac.athttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2378-3661Propylaeumhttps://d-nb.info/gnd/1257896830Heidelberghttp://d-nb.info/gnd/4023996-22025Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)pylon.7.4https://doi.org/10.48631/pylon.2025.7.112020S. Kovarik, “An 8th-Century Heracleopolite compromissum from the Bodleian Library,” Pylon 7 (2025) Article 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48631/pylon.2025.7.112020.PylonEditions and Studies of Ancient Texts2751-4722742025Converted from a Word document for Pylon.2025-06-26T13:12:21Z An 8th-Century Heracleopolite compromissum from the Bodleian Library
The following article was written within the framework of the project “From the Nile to the Caucasus” (I 4674-G), funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) which I thank for its continuous support. The papyrus was first transcribed in 2010 when I joined Amin Benaissa and Nikolaos Gonis in cataloguing the unpublished papyri of the Bodleian library. Thanks go to Lajos Berkes and Nikolaos Gonis for comments on the edition and Paul Schubert for checking the Geneva papyrus catalogue. Peter Tóth kindly provided a picture of P.Bodl. 1 73. Remaining errors are my own responsibility.
The papyrus edited in this article is one of the latest legal documents from Egypt written in Greek. The sheet is complete, all margins are preserved. The format is unusual for a contract: it was neither cut from a roll and written with the fibres, nor was the roll turned and written transversa charta alongside its height, as would be expected from a notarial document. Its width rather suggests that the roll was split in half to accommodate two documents written transversa charta, and then cut after the writing was completed. This is known especially for letters in the 7th century, see CPR 30: 38 for the practice in the Senouthios-archive, and would also fit with the space around the notarial signature (written in a larger contract cursive and in pale ink), which might suggest that a window was left to be written in at a later stage. The 15 lines of text slightly slant to the right. Lines 5–7 are damaged; the papyrus is held together by a few vertical fibres. Most of the back fibres are missing. The last semi-loose fragment on the right needs to be moved half a centimetre to the right, in order to join the my of νομοῦ in l. 4. There is evidence of slightly uneven horizontal folds (which are not parallel to the bottom margin, but higher on the right-hand side), suggesting that the document was stored folded up. These folds run parallel to the writing on the recto as well as to the endorsement on the verso (now unfortunately illegible), which was probably written at 180° rather than in the same direction as the recto. This is supported by a few legible letters (α, ν, π) and by the fact that the last fold at the bottom is incomplete which implies that the document was folded from top to bottom; if it was not turned after folding, the docket would indeed run at 180° in relation to the recto. The papyrus displays a typical eighth-century minuscule. The date can be confirmed on prosopographical grounds, see below II. Most abbreviations belong to the dating in l. 12, as is customary. The subscription is in Coptic.
The papyrus was donated to the Bodleian library by Lucy Hunt, A.S. Hunt’s widow, in 1934.
I. Provenance
This compromissum was drawn up by a notary named Ioannes on the 21st of Phamenoth in an 11th indiction. The origin of both parties suggests that it was written in Leukogion (TM Geo 1248), an important harbour (ὅρμος) and trading place between the Arsinoite and Heracleopolite nomes. Its location is unknown; Falivene 1998: 122 places it at the Nile, but Morelli in CPR 22 3.5n. at the Bahr Yusuf at the entrance to the Fayum. It is mostly referred to as κώμη (‘village’) or κτῆμα (‘piece of land, estate’) and might once have belonged to the Arsinoite nome (P.Cair. Isid. 9.282, 284 [309]), but it is exclusively attested in the Heracleopolite nome from the 6th to 8th centuries. Although notarial documents were usually drawn up in the nome capitals, Leukogion seems to have had its own notarial practices, at least in the 7th and 8th centuries, which differ from the tabellionic tradition of Heracleopolis.
This goes along with a number of Heracleopolite localities that we encounter as places of composition in the 5th to 8th centuries, which all appear to be on edge of the Heracleopolite nome either bordering the Arsinoite (Bousiris: P.Rain. Cent. 124 [492], Leukogion, Tinteris: P.Michael. 126 [538]) or Oxyrhynchite (Kerkesephis: SPP 20 127 [463], Koba: SPP 20 117 [411], Papa megale: P.Köln 7 323 [7th/8th c.], Pasei: P.Vind. Sijp. 7 [463], Phebichis: P.Rain. Cent. 123 [478], Tosachmis: SB 6 9593 [6th/7th c.]). Perhaps the distance to the nome capital was the deciding factor for the development of local notarial traditions, or, as in the case of Leukogion, the importance as a centre of trade, see Morelli 2004: 184, n. 39.
Apart from Ioannes, son of Phib, we only know of three more local notaries, Eugenios in P.Dubl. 24, and two unread names in P.Bodl. 1 73 and P.Gen. 4 181, cf. the corrections in Appendix II. All 7th- and 8th-century documents from Leukogion are collected in Appendix I.
II. Date and Notary
The date of the Bodleian papyrus may be narrowed down thanks to additional information on the notary who appears in two other documents from Leukogion. One of them is an unpublished deed of sale housed in the Pushkin Museum (inv. ИГ-4814; I.1.б 608), which preserves the end of the body of the document and the subscriptions, including the notarial signature of Ioannes. There is another fragment in the same collection (ИГ-4812; I.1.б 706), the beginning of a contract of similar width, written in Leukogion, in the same clear and upright minuscule which seems to connect it to ИГ-4814, and with a precise dating to 4 April 718 (Diocletian era year 434, 1st indiction). They were initially assumed to be part of the same document, but this cannot ultimately be confirmed. Nevertheless, there is a strong indication that these papyri are related.
Thumbnail images and metadata for both papyri were once available on the website of the Pushkin Museum but have since been taken down; see the catalogue of Chepel 2018, which records the two documents as belonging together. However, the woman subscribing in ИГ-4814, l. 6 (what else survives of the contract is likewise formulated in the singular) does not match the group of people who appear as the issuing party at the beginning of the greeting formula in ИГ-4812, l. 4. Both papyri were once part of the private collection of V.S. Golenischev, who sold them to the Moscow museum (through the Egyptologist B.A. Turaev) between 1908 and 1912.
The Bodleian papyrus was drawn up in an 11th indiction which, if we bear in mind the date of ИГ-4814 (718), likely corresponds to either 713 or 728. If so, this would make it the latest attested contract in Greek known from Egypt.
This is something I claimed before for another compromissum from the 8th century, edited in Kovarik 2020: 67 for which I suggested the date 724–725 (?).
The other papyrus signed by the notary Ioannes is P.Gen. 4 189, in which the notarial signature is only partly preserved as [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ Φιβ ἐγράφη. It can now be restored with the help of the two other documents as [† δι᾿ ἐμ]ο̣ῦ̣ [Ἰωάν]ν̣ο̣υ̣ υἱο̣ῦ̣ Φιβ ἐγράφη † †. Drawn up in Pachon (day of the month unclear) of a 15th indiction, it could be tentatively dated to April/May 717. The indiction in the Heracleopolite nome ran concurrently to the Egyptian civil year, starting with Thoth, and there is no reason to assume this changed in the post-conquest period.
Rarely do we find the specification with ἀρχῇ/τέλει after the month; no Arab-period examples are preserved for the Heracleopolite nome. In the Arsinoite nome, where the indiction starts in Epeiph, we find τέλει still for Payni (CPR 24 33.3 [653]), SPP 8 866.4 (7th c.) and ἀρχῇ still for Epeiph (SPP 20 243.5 [648], SB 1 4763.3 (2nd half 7th c.), SPP 8 941.2 [7th c.]) or Mesore (P.Mich. 15 748.2 [651] or even Thoth (CPR 14 16.7 [644?]. If, however, for some reason the starts of indiction became unified in the Arab period, beginning in Pachon (like in the Thebaid and probably the delta), then P.Gen. 4 189 would date to the year 716. ИГ-4812.3 dates to Pharmouthi and has no indication of τέλει, SB 20 15092.4 (2nd half 7th c.), also from Leukogion, from Pachon has no ἀρχῇ which of course does not count for much. From Oxyrhynchos, however, we have the case of P.Wisc. 1 11.3–4 (646?): Ἐπεὶφ η ἰνδ(ικτί)ο(νος) τετάρτης ̣ ἀ̣ρχ(ῇ) σὺν θ(εῷ) πέμπτης and P.Mich. 15 748.2 (651): Μεσορὴ κ ἰνδ(ικτίονος) θ, ἀρχ(ῇ) σὺν θ(εῷ) δεκάτης ἰ(νδικτίονος), which must refer to the fiscal indiction and is in line with Oxyrhynchite practice since the late fifth century, see e.g. P.Mich. 15 731.2 (499) Ἐπεὶφ [ ̣] ἰνδ(ικτίονος) ζ ἀρχ(ῇ) η.
In Arsinoite and Heracleopolite papyri from 657 onwards we additionally find the era of Diocletian, which is calculated from the first year of Diocletian’s reign). Discrepancies between era dating and indiction usually differ a whole year and are of no help in establishing the starting point of either the indiction or the era. The Geneva papyrus lacks the invocation that usually introduces the prescript of a notarial document and provides only an informal date with month, indiction, and place of issue. It is written with the fibres in a vertical format, meaning its length corresponds to the height of a papyrus roll. It is almost complete with only the beginning of the notarial signature broken off, but it is partly abraded. Diethart and Hasitzka 2011: 239 and Gascou 2015 suggested corrections to the unread parts of the document in the body and the Coptic subscription (= SB 4 Kopt. 1807). The papyrus was bought by Édouard Naville for Jules Nicole in the ‘période d’achat 1882–1897’.
The online catalogue also notes that “C. Wehrli renvoie dans son catalogue à P.Gen. inv. 61, mais ce dernier manque dans la collection de Genève depuis 1987” – this latter papyrus, however, seems to be P.Gen. 4 198 (P.Gen. inv. 150), of Arsinoite origin, which dates to 634.
At first glance, therefore, there is no indication of a shared provenance for the documents drawn up by our notary Ioannes.
The diversity of these three documents in format, layout and style attests to the blurring of Late Roman traditions in the 8th century: two of the three testimonies of this notary dispense with the proper prescript (the Oxford and Geneva documents), and two use the minuscule (Oxford and Moscow). This would not happen in a standard tabellionic document, which remained a refuge of the cursive until the very end (apart from subscriptions), see Kovarik (forthcoming b). Two of the documents (Geneva and Oxford) contain a Coptic subscription. All three notarial signatures, however, are written in cursive and are identical in their composition and possibly even in handwriting (see l. 15n.), but for a cross above the omega of Ἰωάννου in the Moscow papyrus. The verb of completion is ἐγράφη, which is not typical for contemporary notarial documents from this region. Ioannes also mentions the name of his father, Phib, which is also uncommon in late Heracleopolite documents, but the other two (or three) notaries from Leukogion (P.Dubl. 24, P.Bodl. 1 73) also do this; cf. Appendix II. We do not know of any notarial documents in Greek from the 8th century from outside the Heracleopolite region (see Kovarik 2020), but there are Coptic documents with Greek notarial signatures, which also use ἐγράφη. On family relations and the long-lasting notarial traditions in those late texts, see Kovarik (forthcoming).
III. Compromissa
Among these Arsinoite and Heracleopolite contracts from the 6th to the 8th centuries there is a preponderance of compromissa. A compromissum is an agreement between two contractual parties to appoint one or more arbitrators to resolve an ongoing conflict between them with their judgement (ὅρος, sententia) and is a stage in the process of out-of-court arbitration. Another route of dispute resolution is the settlement (διάλυσις), which accounts for most of our documentation in this context; it usually recounts all stages of the conflict in detail, see Kreuzsaler 2010: 22–25. Arbitration decisions, on the other hand, are very few and vary in style. All these document types (compromissum, dialysis, horos) seem to have required the participation of a notary.
There are two such ὅροι preserved from early 7th-century Leukogion, P.Paramone 16.1, 17 (616) and P.Paramone 17.1 (early 7th c.), both broken off at the bottom. They, too, do not begin with a prescript, but start directly in medias res: ὅρος (l. ὅρον) δεδώκαμεν ἡμεῖς + names. Another ὅρος, which probably comes from the Heracleopolite nome, is P.Gen. 4 181, assigned to the early 7th century, but it is probably not earlier than the middle of the century.
It is the arbitrators who issue and sign the document (ἐπιδέδωκα), cf. P.Paramone 16.1, 17 and 17.1. On this papyrus, see further Appendix II.
Perhaps their small number is due to the fact that they were usually announced orally, and not necessarily written down.
There are more than 100 papyri, in Greek and Coptic, attesting alternative dispute resolution (see Kreuzsaler 2010: 17), among which are ca. 25 published Greek compromissa and a few inedita. Their structure consistently contains the same elements from the 4th to the 8th centuries. The compromissum is usually (at least in part) styled objectively as a bilateral document (see Kovarik 2012: 213–217), and is potentially signed by both parties, who agree on arbitrators (who are mostly specified by name) and pledge to abide by their ruling; otherwise a penalty (poena compromissi) had to be paid (cf. l. 12n.), see Kreuzsaler 2010: 19; Ziegler 1971: 90–104. A discussion of the cause of the dispute is not required in this kind of document. There is no trace in the papyri of the counterpart of the arbitrators, the receptum arbitri, in which the arbitrators confirm that they will act as such in the case, see Kreuzsaler 2010: 20–21; Ziegler 1971: 77–80. Almost as silent is the situation for arbitration proceedings, one famous exception being the Coptic P.Budge
See Schiller 1968. The papyrus is currently being reedited by T.S. Richter with a legal discussion by M. Wojtczak and J. Urbanik.
which also resulted in a dialysis, SB 6 8988 (Apollonopolis, 647).
On alternative dispute resolution, see in general Steinwenter 1925, Modrzejewski 1952, Ziegler 1971, Gagos and van Minnen 1994, Urbanik 2007, Kreuzsaler 2010 and Wojtczak 2016.
Two more Heracleopolite compromissa also date from the 8th century, P.Rain. Cent. 121 (719) and SPP 3 415 + P.Vindob. G 40284, both (re)edited in Kovarik 2020: 60, 62. Both were drawn up by the notary Paulos and display an anomalous format, i.e. written transvera charta while not preserving a vertical format. This could again have been a half-roll-format, but a taller one with 37cm for the full roll. There is no prescript; the first line starts directly with the greeting formula.
Another fragmentary compromissum from Leukogion is CPR 6 7. This has been linked to the decisions recorded in P.Paramone 16 and P.Paramone 17 by Morelli 2004: 182, in particular P.Paramone 16, in which the same person, Chonis, son of Naaraous, might appear and which may have been written by the same hand, cf. l. 3n. SB 1 4673, from the late 6th century, preserves only the end of the document, SPP 3 402, which breaks off in the middle of the text and might be a draft from the 6th or early 7th century, and the unpublished P.Vindob. G 26321, which again only preserves the top part, complete the picture of the Heracleopolite compromissa. The latter two omit the prescript, similar to the Bodleian papyrus edited here.
More compromissa survive from Arsinoe,
BGU 1 315 (627/642), P.Prag. 1 49 (643), SB 1 5681 (624), and SB 30 17412 (596) are preserved in full. SB 14 12194 (mid 7th c.) is almost complete. Fragmentary are BGU 1 309 (602), BGU 21 2895 (624), BGU 21 2896r (659), CPR 6 8 (509?), P.Lond. 2 456 (2nd half 7th c.), P.Prag. 1 48 (615), SB 1 4847 (6th-7th c.), see Appendix II, SB 1 5257 (mid 7th c.), SB 1 5271 (615), SB 8 9775 (649), SB 24 15899 (608), and a handful of Viennese inedita. From Oxyrhynchos is only P.Iand. 3 41 (6th c.). See Appendix II for corrections to BGU 1 315, SB 1 5257 and SB 1 5681
but none of them is as late as the Heracleopolite material. Recently, the latest dated Arsinoite compromissum from 675 was published in Harrauer and Pintaudi 2021: 56–57, with the same opening as the Bodleian papyrus (see l. 1n.) and preserved in its entirety. The names of the arbitrators are curiously omitted, but they are referred to in their capacity as judges of the public prison. Although clearly a compromissum, the summary in the endorsement describes the document as a horos. For more details and corrections, see Appendix II.
MS. Gr. Class. e 135 (P)18.8 (h) × 15.6 (w)Leukogiondigital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk17 March 713 or 728
Fig. 1: MS. Gr. Class. e 135 (P) recto.
Fig. 2: MS. Gr. Class. e 135 (P) verso.
1
The format and formulary of compromissa usually fall into one of two distinctive categories: either the document, as in the present case, emphasises the κομπρόμισσον at the very beginning, followed by the bilateral objective greeting formula – τὸ παρὸν κομπρόμισσον ποιοῦνται … ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς/ἑτέρου μέρους … χαίρειν – which appears to be the Heracleopolite version
Also probably CPR 6 7 (early 7th c.) and P.Vindob. G 26321 (6th c.) as well as the Arsinoite compromissumPL III/1029.
of the introductory τόδε τὸ κομπρόμισσον ποιοῦνται, typical of the 7th-century compromissum in Arsinoe;
or it is reduced to just the greeting formula, omitting any reference to the compromissum, followed by ᾑρήσαντο κοινῇ γνώμῃ in some Heracleopolite documents.
In the Arsinoite material, there is also a variant in which the contracting parties are both mentioned in the nominative: N. N. καὶ Ν. Ν. (ἀλλήλοις) χ(αίρειν).
SB 30 17412 (596), P.Prag. 1 48 (615), P.Prag. 1 49 (643), SB 8 9775 (649). The Heracleopolite document P.Gen. 4 189 (717?), mentioned above, seems to be constructed the same way.
Cf. Kovarik 2012: 213–216.
2
The Name Pekysios (TM NamVar 12766) is very common throughout Egypt, as well as Naaraous (TM NamVar 2750), the Middle Egyptian variant of the name Inaros. Naaraous is a particularly common name in Leukogion, including both fathers in our text, ll. 2–3.
Naaraous, father of Pechysios in P.Paramone 16.3; father of Chonis in CPR 6 7.6 and P.Paramone 17.3; father of Maria and Georgios in P.Dubl. 24.1, 5, and son of Senouthios in in P.Dubl. 24.6; father of Makarios in CPR 7 44.5. Naaraous in P.Lond. 2 391.1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12 and the deceased husband of Tamene in P.Gen. 4 189.3; Naaraous, son of Andreas as hypographeus in ИГ-4814.7, and the father of two witnesses, l. 8.
One Pechysios, son of Naaraous Chonis appears in P.Paramone 16.3, dated to 616 – perhaps an ancestor? In general, the onomastic material in the Leukogion documents is limited. This either suggests that people chose from a narrow pool of names or that these documents concern the same people and families. See the table of Leukogion documents in Appendix I.
3
ἐκ δὲ τοῦ δευτέ̣ρου μέρους: The use of the ordinal is singular; typically, ἑτέρου μέρους is found, but sometimes this is replaced by θατέρου, as in P.Rain. Cent. 121.2.
Αμπα υἱῷ Νααρ(αo)υ Πκανεε: Αμπα is most likely Σαμβᾶς, written haplographically with the sigma of μέρους before, like e.g. P.Ross. Georg. 3 32.14, 15 (Arsinoe, 504), where after υἱός the initial sigma is omitted.
A potential variant of Ἀμβας (TM Nam 41053) can be excluded. It is only recorded in P.Ross. Georg. 3 32.15, which clearly concerns the name Sambas. SPP 3 314.1 (7th c., Hermopolis) probably has νοσοκ(ομίου) τοῦ ἁγίου Αβ̣β̣[α Λ]εο̣ντίου and not Α̣μ̣β̣[α; SB 18 13218.13 (713, Aphrodito) Ἀμβᾶ Κουμνᾶ is the name Αμβακουμ, transliteration of biblical Habakuk (TM Nam 8469). The name Ambas does not exist.
There is a Sambas, brother of Theodoros, in the Pushkin Museum ИГ-4812.4 (718); the papyrus breaks before the patronym.
Πκανεε: or perhaps Πκανεθ. There is no exact equivalent, but there are similar names in 8th-century Aphrodito like Πκανα (TM Nam 49969). Pkanee could either be an alias of the father, or the name of the grandfather.
The specification of a person with three determinants is common in this period; this could either be three names or two names and the profession, like in the case of the priest Pekysios in l. 2, who also gives the name of his father. When three names are arranged one after the other, it is not easy to ascertain whether the third name is the name of the grandfather or the alias name of either the person in question or their father. In the documents from Leukogion, we see in P.Paramone 17.1: Ἀπανάκιος υἱὸς Ἐνὼχ υἱὸς Αἰούλιος, where the filiation υἱός indicates that the third name is the one of the grandfather (although it should then actually be υἱοῦ). Different is the case in P.Paramone 16.3: Πεχυσίω υ̣ἱ̣ῶ Ναρ(άου) Χῶνι, where initially the name Chonis was written and Ναρ(άου) was added above the line only later.
Fig. 3: P.Paramone 16 line 3.
If we assume Pechysios’ father is the same person who appears as Χῶνις υἱὸς Νααραου in CPR 6 7.5–6, this would mean that he shared his father’s name – not very common in late antiquity, when papponymy prevailed – but was actually known as Chonis. According to Morelli 2004: 188, the second is the principal name. We see something similar in P.Dubl. 24.1, where the alias must also refer to the father of the issuing party (Μαρίας θυγατρὸς Να[αρ]αοῦς Παχῶς); this only becomes apparent as such in the hypographe, ll. 10–11, where the name Naaraous is dropped: Α[ὐρη]λ̣ιας Μαριας θυγατρος Παχο͂ς.
Perhaps Chonis (TM Nam 12942), a name exclusively attested for this person, is a nick-name for Pachos (TM Nam 4777), then the Naaraous Pachos, father of Maria could also be the same person.
In P.Gen. 4 189.3, Tamene is called widow of Naaraous without any alias at all; the second name, Elias, appears only in the Coptic hypographe in l. 14, which omits Naaraous. It thus seems that when names are added one after the other without filiation, the second is the father’s (mostly) Egyptian alias. See also SPP 32 68.1 Ὀνοφρίου υἱὸς Μηνᾶ Πμουει, P.Paramone 16.2 Παφνούθιος υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ Πουααλ.
I would suggest that the Μακάρις υἱὸς Να̣α̣ράου Παψ̣[ίου mentioned in CPR 7 44.4–5 (?, 5th-6th c.), referred to only as Makarios, son of Papsios in the hypographe (l. 20), gives reason to assume a 7th-century Heracleopolite provenance for this text which seems to be confirmed by paleography („Hand A”, see Appendix II).
In contrast, in SB 20 15092.5–6: Αὐρήλιος Σεν ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ υἱὸς] τοῦ μακαρίου Ἀνοῦπ ὁ καὶ Καν̣[, the alias-name, although given after the patronym, in fact refers to the issuer Aurelios Sen[outhios?] himself. In this case, however, ὁ καὶ needs to be included for clarity.
In light of this naming practice, Pekysios, son of Apakyrios in ИГ-4812 (718), which was probably drawn up by the same notary, could indeed be the same individual as our Pekysios, son of Naaraous, with Apakyrios serving as alias. The father, Naaraous, in turn, could also have been the deceased husband of Tamene in P.Gen. 4 189.3 who was likely a priest as well.
υἱός (l. 2) – υἱῷ (l. 3): Both parties should be introduced in the nominative; the structure nominative – dative, however, recalls the pattern of the introduction of the contractual parties in unilateral documents, i.e. the standard tabellionic instrument. It is likely that this structure was used by analogy with the usual practice, see Kovarik 2012: 214.
4
κώμης Λευκογίο[υ]: Leukogion is also called κτῆμα. The other examples of our notary Ioannes, P.Gen. 4 189.2 and ИГ-4812.3, also have κώμη. The expression κτῆμα seems to disappear in the Arab period; the latest dated example is P.Paramone 16.4 and the other texts from this dossier (see Appendix I). P.Paramone 17 and P.Dubl. 28 are noteworthy in that they distinguish between κώμη and κτῆμα as places of origin. In P.Paramone 17, the arbitrators (l. 2) are from the κώμη, while the conflicting parties are associated with the κτῆμα (l. 4). In P.Dubl. 28, one party originates from the κώμη, the other from the κτῆμα.
Another example of κτῆμα used for a village that is otherwise referred to as κώμη (e.g. SPP 32 71.2) is the Arsinoite Tamauis in P.Dubl. 26.2. Interestingly, this designation of the village is used in the case of an inhabitant of Onne, a Heracleopolite village near Leukogion, who was residing at Tamauis (cf. Appendix I).
4–5
ἀμφιβολ̣εία̣[ν] ἔ̣[χ]ο̣ν̣τε̣[ς] μετ’ ἀλλήλ[ων: The reference to the dispute as ἀμφιβολία (‘ambiguity, uncertainty of mind’) does not occur very often and is mostly found in the context of arbitration (compromissa and dialyseis) in the 6th to 8th centuries (P.Cair. Masp. 3 67313.16 [Aphrodito], P.Heid. 7 404.15 [Arsinoe], P.Mich. 13 659.125, 134 [Antinoe], SB 22 15764.17 [Arsinoe], SPP 3 402.2 [Heracleopolis]); cf. P.Heid. 7 404.15–16n. An exact parallel is the Heracleopolite CPR 6 7.8 with πρὸς ἀλλήλους instead of μετ’ ἀλλήλων. P.Paramone 17.6 similarly has [τὰ μετα]ξὺ αὐ̣τοὺς χάρι̣ν τ̣ῶν [ἀμ]φιβαλλομένων παρ’ αὐτῶν̣, while the Arsinoite compromissa have δίκην ἔχοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους, see BGU 1 315.11 and SB 1 5681.23–24, and ἐπείπερ δίκην ἔχουσα in SPP 20 243.12 (648). Sometimes the synonyms φιλονικία or ἀμφισβήτησις are used, e.g. in P.Dubl. 24.4 ἐπειδὴ περὶ φιλονικίας γεναμένης μεταξὺ ἡμῶν, or P.Apoll. 28.2: ἀμφισβήτησις ἐγένετο μετα[ξὺ αὐτῶ]ν. There is also the clause δίχα πάσης ἀμφιβολίας καὶ δίκης καὶ κρίσεως vel. sim. in contracts of the Thebaid tradition, showing the ambivalence of the terminology (P.Cair. Masp. 3 67305.21, P.Lond. 5 1716.8, P.Vat.Aphrod. 1.24), cf. l. 11n..
5-6
π]ε̣[ρί τ]ι̣ν̣ων [αὐτῶν κ]ε̣[φ]αλαίων: τι is written as in ἐμμέν[ο]ντι in l. 11 with iota ascending over the line. CPR 6 7.10 contains the same expression: πε̣ρ̣ί̣ τινων αὐτῶν κεφαλ(αίων); the Arsinoite compromissumSB 1 5681.24 has περί τινων κεφαλαίων. κεφάλαιον is a legal technical term, the exact meaning of which is not entirely clear; see the detailed discussion in Simon 1969: 21–24. SPP 20 243.24–27 (Arsinoe, 648) illustrates how, after asking a relative to represent her in a legal dispute, Christodora agrees to regard as valid everything done by him in this present matter (kephalaion): πάντα τὰ παρὰ σοῦ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ πραττόμενα καὶ πραχθησόμενα ἐπὶ τῷ παρόντι κεφαλαίῳ. In BGU 12 2173.2–3 (Hermopolis, 498), a certain Eucharistia brings an action (αἰτισίαν) against someone who was liable to her in various points (ἐνεχομένου αὐτῇ ἐπὶ διαφόροις κεφαλαίοις). These points are then enumerated (ll. 4–7) and seem to denote either the charges brought or the offences committed: he violently forced his way into a house in Hermopolis, where he illegally took up residence and stole moveable belongings deposited there as well as the servants. In l. 15 the κεφάλαια are specified as χρηματικά or ἐγκληματικά, that is, civil and criminal claims.
6–7
μὴ δυ̣[νηθέντ]ες [δι’ ἑαυτῶν ἀ]παλ̣λα̣γῆναι: The same collocation appears in the compromissaSB 1 5681.25–26. μὴ δυνηθέντες δι’ ἑαυ̣τοὺς ἀ̣[παλ]λαγκῆναι and again, as for the preceding lines, CPR 6 7.10–12 μὴ δυνηθέντες δι’ ἑαυτῶν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἀπαλλαγῆναι.
7–8
ᾕ̣[ρέσαν]τ̣ο ἑ[κουσίας] αὐτῶν γνώμης: This expression is used in three other late Heracleopolite compromissa (CPR 6 7.13, P.Rain. Cent. 121.2 and SPP 3 415 + P.Vindob. G 40284.2), see Kovarik 2020: 63, while in Arsinoite compromissa, we find αἱρέομαι in infinitive-constructions
Also, in SPP 20 243.17–23 (Arsinoe, 648), when Christodora asks to be represented: καὶ μὴ δυνηθεῖσα τὴν τοιαύτην δίκην ποιήσασθαι πρὸς αὐτοὺς παρακέκλη[κά] σε ἀπαλάσσειν τὸ ἐμὸ(ν) πρόσωπον καὶ αἱρέσασθαι πρὸς αὐτ(οὺς) ἐπὶ τῶν μεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτῶν αἱρεθησομέ(νων) δικαστῶν καὶ κομπρόμισσα ἐκθέσθαι καὶ πρόστιμον ἐπὶ παραβασίᾳ.
such as ἔδοξεν αὐτοὺς αἱρήσασθαι (BGU 1 315.12–13, SB 1 5681.26) or ὁμολογῶ αἱρήσασθαι (SB 30 17412.9–10). Some Arsinoite documents have different constructions, such as ὁμολογοῦμεν δικάσασθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐπὶ + anonymous arbitrators (P.Prag. 1 49.15–16, SB 14 12194.16–17, PL III/1029.10, ed. in Harrauer and Pintaudi 2021: 56, cf. l. 9n.).
9
δικαιολογήσασθαι: δικαιολογέομαι means “plead one’s cause before the judge” (LSJ), which cannot be what is required of the arbitrators: in this context they were rather called upon for their opinion, and in consequence, a decision. This is otherwise attested in three 6th-century dialyseis, P.Lond. 1 113, 1.16 (Arsinoe, 6th c.), P.Mich. 13 659.40, 53, 108 (Antinoopolis, 527–547), and P.Münch. 1 6.54 (Syene?, 583), where it refers to the pleading of the parties. There are also numerous attestations of δικαιολογία, e. g. P.Münch. 1 14.35 (Syene, 594). In our case it might have been mistaken for δικάσασθαι, see l. 7–8n.
10–11
παραβαῖνον and ἐμμέν[ο]ντι are termini technici for the breaching- and non-breaching party to a contract and typical for the penalty clauses in both compromissa and dialyseis.
11
δίκην refers to the decision of the arbitrators. It is not a specific technical term, since other terms (δίκη, ὅρος or κρίσις) may also indicate the decision or judgement of the arbitrators. These terms are sometimes used within the same text, which suggests that they were synonyms associated with certain clauses (see also introduction). δίκη, however, is most common, and a fixture of the ἐμμένειν-clause in all compromissa: καὶ ἐμμένειν or ἐμμεῖναι τῇ διδομένῃ ἡμῖν or τῇ αὐτῶν δίκῃ vel. sim. in BGU 1 315.15–17, P.Gen. 4 181.2, P.Prag. 1 49.21–22, SB 1 5681.33–34, SB 14 12194.18–20, SB 26 16564.4 (unknown origin, probably a compromissum) and PL III/1029.10, as well as in SPP 20 243.18 (see n. 19.) and 28 in the context of a lawsuit. Yet δίκη is also the reason given: “we have a conflict” (δίκην ἔχοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους) in BGU 1 315.11, SB 1 5681.23, and SPP 20 243.12. Most often, the word appears in the καθάπερ ἐκ δίκης-clause, where δίκη means ‘trial’. This can lead to terminological confusion. Cf. l. 4–5n.
The designation for the few written judgements that we have (which were already discussed in the introduction), is, however, always ὅρος (‘boundary, landmark’), see P.Paramone 16.1 and P.Paramone 17.1, which start with ⳨ ὅρος δεδόκαμεν ἡμεῖς + names; SB 22 15764.22 has ἐγράφη ὁ παρὼν ὅρος ἐκ φωνῆς τῶν εἰρημένων δικ̣ασ̣τ̣ῶ̣ν. We find it also – erroneously – in the summary of PL III/1029.25 in the place of κομπρόμισσον (see Appendix II). The penalty clauses of SB 14 12194. 21 and SB 26 16564.5 refer to ὅρος as well: εἰ δέ τις ἐξ ἡμῶν μὴ στέρξῃ τῷ ὅρῳ, while BGU 1 315.17–18, P.Prag.1 49.23, SB 1 5681.34–35 and PL III/1029.10, and SB 1 4847.3 (see Appendix II for corrections) on the other hand use κρίσις in this context: εἰ δέ τις ἐκ τῶν μερῶ(ν)/ἐξ ἡμῶν μὴ στέρξῃ τῇ αὐτῶν κρίσει. Along the same line, the decision-makers, the arbitrators, are either called δικασταί like in SB 22 15764.22, SB 14 12194.21, SPP 20 243.22; ὁρισταί in P.Prag. I 49.19 and SB 14 12194.17, so someone who settles boundaries, and κριταί potentially only in PL III/1029.10 (see Appendix II for corrections). SPP 3 402.3 mentions an ἀκροατής, someone who listens.
12
προστίμου χρυ(σοῦ) νο(μισμάτια) δ: It is not clear whether there is a correlation between the amount of the penalty and the value that lies at the heart of the dispute, since the context is not given in the compromissum agreements. The four solidi could indicate a substantial sum as cause of the conflict, but there are examples of higher sums, such as the 12 solidi in PL III/1029.15–16; see also Kovarik 2020: 65–66. This penalty is usually paid to the other contractual party. But in the 8th-century parallels from Heracleopolis (P.Rain. Cent. 121.5, SPP 3 415 + P.Vindob. G 40284.5) and some Arsinoite documents from the 7th century (P.Prag. I 49.26 and SB 14 12194.22–23), the penalty was to be paid to the praetorium, the residence or office of a high official, possibly the dux, topoteretes, or pagarch, see Kovarik 2020: 64–65. As there will have been no such a building in Leukogion, the other party would have been the rightful recipient of a any penalty.
13–14
The subscription is written in Coptic. There are parallels in late 7th- and early 8th-century contracts for this practice, mostly from the Heracleopolite region: first and foremost, P.Gen. 4 189, which was signed by the same notary Ioannes from Leukogion, P.Eirene 2 6, SB 6 9146, and a number of unpublished papyri from Vienna.
Ⲡⲓϭⲱϣ (TM NamVar 54904), a variant of the more common Ⲡⲉϭⲱϣ or Ⲡⲉⲕⲱϣ, is the Coptic equivalent of Pekysios and is attested in a variety of contemporary texts. On the person Pekysios, see above l. 2n. and l. 3n.
15
For the notary Ioannes, son of Phib, see introduction. The use of patronyms in Heracleopolite documents is only known from Leukogion: the three testimonies of our notary Ioannes, as well as P.Dubl. 24, P.Bodl. 1 73, and probably P.Gen. 4 181 (see Appendix II). P.Dubl. 24 even has a digraphic Latinate-Greek signature. For the use of patronyms in notarial signatures of Arsinoite documents, where mentioning the father is customary, see Kovarik 2023b: 197–199 and 210–212. On the notarial signature in general, see Kovarik 2023. In Heracleopolite documents, however, this is not common practice and our notary is exceptional in this way.
ἐγράφη is written with a peculiar and idiosyncratic ligature of phi and eta which is added low at the descender of phi. Then two or more strokes run through it. The same can be found in his other two signatures in ИГ-4814 and P.Gen. 4 189. All three signatures are virtually identical in their various elements, written in cursive with minuscule intrusions in form of the hooks on the descenders and the shape of ny.
Fig. 4: MS. Gr. Class. e. 135 (P) line 15.
Fig. 5: Pushkin Museum inv. ИГ-4814; I.1.б 608 line 10.
Fig. 6: P.Gen. 4 189 line 18.
Appendix I: Leukogion
The following table lists all documents from the 7th to 8th centuries (there are no attestations for the 5th–6th centuries) from or relating to Leukogion.
The names κώμη and κτῆμα are used interchangeably, cf. above introduction. I exclude lists of toponyms, such as SB 26 16442.11 (6th-7th c.) and SPP 10 149.8 (6th c.). There is also a small sub-group of documents from the Heracleopolite village Onne, which appear to be connected.
Most of these documents are legal in nature and were either drawn up in Leukogion (ἐν Λευκογίῳ vel. sim.) and/or involve parties from there. Some of them only mention Leukogion in passing. In total, there are about 30 testimonies, which fall into a few distinct groups or dossiers of papyri. It is all the more striking that their acquisition history appears to be varied. The majority date from the early 7th century, and then there is the small dossier of our notary Ioannes from the early 8th century, as well as some contemporary fiscal documents. These papyri may therefore stem from only two archival finds.
For the 7th century, the documentation can be assigned to various sub-groups according to different criteria like handwriting, prosopography or acquisition.
The first and earliest group is connected via the script (“hand A”) and comes from the early 7th century: SB 30 17667 (603), P.Dubl. 28 (611/612), P.Bodl. 1 73 (615/616), and P.Paramone 17 are all written by the same hand. Another papyrus (CPR 7 44), assigned to the fifth/sixth century and said to be of unknown provenance, is written in the same hand (and shares other peculiarities typical of Leukogion, see Appendix II). Also, P.Bodl. 1 73 concerns a Menas, son of a late Apollôs, who in turn might be identical with Apollôn, son of Menas in SB 30 17667. There is no obvious connection by acquisition history. The three Vienna papyri (SB 30 17667, P.Paramone 17, CPR 7 44) were bought (or registered) in different years
1881, 1883 and 1896. But the Vienna inventory is not entirely reliable. The recorded provenance for SB 30 17667 as Hermopolis is clearly unlikely. Erroneous Hermopolite provenance for papyri from the First Fayum find in the Vienna collection is not uncommon, see e.g. Morelli 2008: 142–144.
; the Bodleian papyrus was donated as well by Hunt’s widow in 1934 (but bought sometime between 1894/5 and 1906/7). The papyri at Trinity College Dublin, by contrast, are of unknown provenance.
The second group concerns a conflict and its resolution involving a certain Pechysios, son of Naaraous (P.Paramone 16), his father Chonis, son of Naaraous (P.Paramone 17, CPR 6 7) and a priest named Herakleides (P.Paramone 16), who also appears in P.Dubl. 28, P.Lond. 2 391, and P.Lond. 2 392. P.Paramone 16 can be dated to 616, and the other documents are approximately from the same period – similar to group 1. On the whole dispute see Morelli 2004. The first three papyri belong to the Vienna collection, the other three to Trinity College Dublin and the British Library. Through Herakleides and “hand A”, this group is connected to the first and the third groups.
There is another small group connected by acquisition, which is housed in the British Library. Like the Vienna papyri, they were bought from Theodor Graf, in March (P.Lond. 2 450) and April 1893 (P.Lond. 2 391, P.Lond. 2 392, P.Lond. inv. 399, ed. Gonis 2023: 124) respectively. They again come from the early 7th century, and P.Lond. 2 392 can tentatively be dated to 621. P.Lond. 2 391 and P.Lond. 2 392 also concern the priest Herakleides, the former also a Theophilos like in P.Paramone 16, which connects this group as well to the other two groups. P.Lond. 2 450 (7th c.) mentions a Leukogiotes (see Gonis 2023: 124 and Gonis 2024: 144–145).
A common provenance was already established by Morelli 2004: 180–183, who counted six documents as belonging to the dossier of Pekysios and Chonis, a combination of all three groups (P.Paramone 16, P.Paramone 17, CPR 6 7, P.Lond. 2 391, P.Lond. 2 392, P.Dubl. 28). It is possible that there are more documents to be added to the dossier (see Morelli 2004: 183, n. 32 “sospetti mi sembrano ad esempio P.Dubl. 24, 25, e 26, cronologicamente e geograficamente vicini al nostro gruppetto di documenti”).
The μονὴ (τοῦ) Λευκογίου that is mentioned in P.Lond. 2 392.2–3 (14th indiction) also appears in PUG 1 50.6 (6th–7th c.) from a 15th indiction; the latter was acquired by B.P. Grenfell on the antiquities market before 1897 (cf. PUG 1, p. 103). It appears to concern “des liturgies postales” (Gascou 2014: 215). The importance of Leukogion for the cursus publicus is underlined by the existence of a postal station (ἀλλαγή) in SPP 8 952.2 (6th c.): σταβλίτ(ῃ) γ̣( ) ἀλλαγη( ) Λευκογι( ), which is probably Arsinoite.
Three other contemporary papyri from Leukogion are P.Dubl. 24, SB 20 15092, purchased in Egypt by B.P. Grenfell and F.W. Kelsey in March–April 1920 and kept in Michigan, and SPP 32 68 from the Vienna collection which was purchased in Heracleopolis. P.Dubl. 24 might be connected by its handwriting to the arbitration papers of the second group via CPR 6 7 and P.Paramone 16. P.Dubl. 24 has a Latinate signature, which seems to imitate the official notarial tradition, but it is written transversa charta and without a prescript and uses a hypomnematic greeting formula (τῷ δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος); both parties come from Leukogion. It is also possible that the fathers of Pechysios in P.Paramone 16.3 and Maria in P.Dubl. 24.1, 10–11 are the same person, see l. 3n. with n. 16. There are also some paleographical similarities, especially in the form of the ny, between SB 20 15092 and SPP 32 68, but they are not sufficient to suggest a common origin. All three preserve indiction datings; P.Dubl. 24 is dated Mesore of a 3rd indiction which could equate 600/615/630. In SB 20 15092, a delta remains from the indiction-number, but there is no regnal year, so Pachon in a 10th (δεκάτης), 12th (δωδεκάτης) or 2nd (δευτέρας) indiction, and probably less likely also a 4th (δ), could be meant, covering the years 623, 625 or 629 of the Sasanian occupation (a date after the Arab conquest seems less likely). SPP 32 68 records Payni of a 14th indiction, potentially 611/626; one party comes from the kome Onne, which connects this document, in turn, to P.Dubl. 25, a loan in which all parties come from Onne. On the back is a draft of a labour contract (P.Dubl. 26) in which a certain Kosmas (l. 1), potentially the same person who is mentioned on the other side (only the patronym survives in l. 2), now resides in the Arsinoite village of Tamauis. These documents could have been acquired together with P.Dubl. 24 or P.Dubl. 28. Two more documents concern the village Onne and both come from the Vienna collection, P.Rain. Cent. 137 and SPP 3 371. The latter is a fragmentary receipt written in a similar style and with a typical ny. In P.Rain. Cent. 137.1 Enoch and Theodoros appear; people by this name are attested in P.Paramone 17.1 and PUG 1 50.4. In P.Dubl. 25.2 there is a Daniel whom we may know from P.Lond. 2 392.2, but without any indication of filiation and profession. However, these are common names connected with different villages, so that it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions.
Lastly, there is one document in the dossier of the (probably) Arsinoite notary Apollôs from the 7th century, who works for people who come explicitly from the Arsinoite (SPP 3 344, SPP 32 40), as well as Heracleopolite (SPP 32 185) nomes; SB 1 4681 and SB 1 5259 have Arsinoite-style completiones. One ineditum in the dossier of this notary also mentions Leukogion (P.Vindob. G 26398.5), but it is too fragmentary to give any more context. Apart from SB 1 4681, bought from Chester in June 1879 and housed in the Louvre, all the papyri are currently kept in Vienna and were bought in the 1880s.
The few catalogue entries seem to match the internal information: SB 1 5259 (P.Vindob. G 24442) “Ex 1881/4 Erster Faijûmer Fund” and SPP 32 40 (P.Vindob. G 11040) “Fayum ex 1883” come from the Fayum; SPP 32 185 (P.Vindob. G 11040) “Ahnas ex 1883” from Heracleopolis.
While some of these documents are only loosely connected, groups 1–3 are clearly related and may, despite the difference in acquisition history, all concern one archival find which was later dispersed and spread around in different collections. This presumptive common provenance might even extend to all early 7th-century documents from this same geographical region, including the village of Onne.
A second, larger dossier is the one around our notary Ioannes
This dossier of notarial or pseudo-notarial documents from the Heracleopolite countryside fits with other documents from similar localities, mostly from the 5th century, see n. 1 above.
from the beginning of the 8th century, with the Bodleian papyrus edited above (MS. Gr. Class. e. 135 (P)), the Geneva (P.Gen. 4 189) and Moscow pieces ИГ-4814 and possibly also ИГ-4812 (see n. 2), the latter dated 718. This suggests that the remaining papyri in this group date to the early 8th century (713/728 and 717).
These dates coincide with a number of tax documents from Leukogion. CPR 8 76 (698), SB 6 9262 (714), and SB 20 14234 (716) have no obvious internal or external connection. The first belongs to the Vienna collection and was acquired in Heracleopolis; the second is in Cairo and the last came to Berlin via the collection of the German Egyptologist Heinrich Brugsch in 1891. SB 20 14234, however, forms part of a small archive of well-preserved and sealed tax receipts around Menas, son of Senouthios Baouch who is known from two more tax receipts (SB 18 13269, SB 18 13268), from 719 and 722 respectively; his brother, Georgios, is found in another receipt (SB 18 13270) dated to 719. These papyri also come from the Brugsch collection and have the consecutive inventory numbers P. 7885–7888 in the Berlin museum, suggesting that they were acquired together. Two more entagia (P.Grenf. 2 105 and P.Grenf. 2 106), issued in 719 by the same Arab official, also refer to Leukogion; they were both purchased by the Bodleian Library from B.P. Grenfell in 1896. P.Grenf. 2 106 refers to Menas, son of Senouthios Baouch, which connects these texts to the rest of the dossier (on this group of texts see Gonis 2001: 225–226 with n. 6). Apart from their dates (714–719), there seems to be no reason to connect these documents to the deeds from Leukogion (MS. Gr. Class. e. 135 (P),
P.Gen. 4 189, ИГ-4812 and ИГ-4814), which are probably datable to 713–718.
It may only be noted that a Damianos from Leukogion appears in SB 6 9262.2 and in a witness subscription in ИГ-4814.8.
The two Bodleian documents from the early 7th and the early 8th centuries, P.Bodl. 1 73 and MS. Gr. Class. e. 135 (P), both of which were donated by Lucy Hunt,
The donation was recorded as having taken place in 1934 in the catalogue of E. Lobel, then Keeper of Western Manuscripts. However, Sampson (2022: §20, n. 53) questions this date in favour of 1935, stating: “But I have confirmed the 13 March 1935 date in the Bodleian’s Register of donations, 1932–1936 (Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, Library Records b. 220).”.
link the two larger chronological dossiers through a possible common provenance.
The onomastic material in these texts is very limited, but it is unclear whether this means all the people with the same names are identical or related. A few people in the two major groups can, however, be identified with a fairly high degree of certainty: Apollôn, son of Menas in 1, Menas son of Apollôs in 3. Chonis in 4, 5 and 6 (and 13 (?), cf. n. 16); the priest Herakleides in 2, 4, 9 and 10. A Theophilos appears in 4 and 9; Biktor, son of Aioulios in 5 and 6 (another or the same as the Aioulios in 5). There is a Menas, son of Senouthios Baouchi in 21 and a Menas, son of Baouch, son of Menas in 26. The same “hand A” (or the same writing style?) appears at least in 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and “hand B” in 4, and 6, and perhaps 13.
The following table brings together all the information discussed above, listing papyri in chronological order and adding details about the contracting parties,
A † means that the mentioned person was deceased.
genre, handwriting, place names, and acquisition history.
2. N.N. stablites, via Apa (?) scholasticus, s. of Menas
Vienna
from Theodor Graf
“Faijûm ex 1883”
137th c.
P.Dubl. 24
(Pap. C 2)
both parties ἀπὸ τοῦ Λευκογίου κτήματος (l. 2)
ἀμεριμνία/ἀσφάλεια (conflict resolution)
Hand B (?)
1. Matthias, s. of Phoibammon
2. Maria, d. of Naaraous Pachos
Dublin, Trinity College147th c.
SB 20 15092
(P. 489)
l. 5: ἐν Λευκογίῳ ,
corr. Gonis 2023: 125, n. 2
both parties ἀπὸ κώμης (ll. 8, 11)
loan
1. Aur. Senouthios (?), s. of Anoup (†) alias Kan[
2. Aur. Markos, s. of Andreas (†)
Ann Arbor
purchased in Egypt by B.P. Grenfell and F.W. Kelsey in March-April 1920
157th c.
P.Lond. 2 450
(Pap 450)
l. 2–3: κυρ(ίου) Ἰωάνν(ου) Λευκογιώτ(ο)υreceipt
1. Ioannes stippourgos
2. Ioannes, Leukogiotes
British Library
from Theodor Graf April 1893
16
7th c.
(14th ind. 596 or 611 ed.pr.)
SPP 32 68
(P.Vindob. G 11068)
1. ἀπὸ κώμ(ης) Ὀννή
2. ἀπὸ κώμης Λευκογίου (l. 3)
receipt
1. Onnophrios, s. of Menas Pmouei and
Paniskos, s. of Pekysios
2. Menas, s. of Eiatros
Vienna
from Theodor Graf
“Ahnas ex 1883”
7th c.
P.Dubl. 25
(Select Box 136.1), back P.Dubl. 26
1.+2 from κώμη Ὀννή
Loan with mortgage
Same hand like P.Dubl. 26 (Hand B?)
1. N.N., s. of Daniel
2. N.N., s. of Menas
Dublin, Trinity College7th c.
P.Dubl. 26
(Select Box 136.2), back P.Dubl. 25
1. from Onne, but now in Tamauis
2. from either Onne or Tamauis
Draft contract of labour
Same hand like P.Dubl. 25 (Hand B?)
1. Aur. Kosmas, s. of –
2. Aurelios (draft)
Dublin, Trinity College6th c.
P.Rain. Cent. 137
(P.Vindob. G 25880)
1. OnneOrder of payment
1. Enoch, grammateus of Onne
2. Theodoros, s. of Iakob, through Ioannes notarios
Vienna
from Theodor Graf “Ex 1881”
6th–7th c.
(ed. pr. 5ht–6th c.)
SPP 3 371
(P.Vindob. G 11276)
boethos of Onne is mentionedreceipt1. N. N. + Apa Neilos, s. of Anysios, farmers
Vienna
from Theodor Graf “ex 1883”
17
6th–7th c.
notary Apollôs
P.Vindob. G 26398l. 6 Λευκογίουdiamartyria (?)–
Vienna
from Theodor Graf “Ex 1881/4 Erster Faijûmer Fund”
Late 7th to 8th century18698
CPR 8 76
(P.Vindob. G 11837)
l. 2: ὑπὲρ τ(ο ) χω(ριο ) Λευκ(ο)γ(ίου)
Dossier of Atias
minuscule
1. Flavius Atias, dux
2. N.N. from the village Isiou for Leukogion
Vienna
from Theodor Graf “Ex 1883 Heracleopolis Magna”
19
713/728
notary Ioannes
MS. Gr. Class. e. 135 (P)
both parties
ἀπὸ κώμης (l. 4)
κομπρόμισσον
minuscule
1. Pekysios, s. of Naaraous, priest
2. Sambas (?), s. of Naaraous Pkanee
Arbitrators: Kosmas, s. of Papas and Menas, s. of Antonios
donated by Lucy Hunt in 193420714
SB 6 9262
(P. Fouad 131)
l. 2: ἀπὸ χ(ωρίου) Λευκογ(ίου)
Damianos from Leukogion (χωρίον)
entagion
1. Mohammed Aboulqasim
2. Damianos, deacon
Cairo, IFAO Fouad Collection
purchased in 1930
21716
SB 20 14234
(P. 7888)
l. 2: ἀπὸ χ(ωρίου) Λευκογ(ίου)
tax receipt
minuscule
1. Mohammed Aboulqasim
2. Menas, s. of Senouthios Baouchi
Berlin Sammlung Brugsch 189122
8th c.
(717?)
notary Ioannes
P.Gen. 4 189 (P. Gr. 149)
l. 2: ἐν κώμῃ Λευκογίῳ
both parties
ἀπὸ κώμης (l. 6)
ὁμολογία
1. Tamene, widow of Naaraous, s. of Arasios?
2. Lacher, widow of Papaioannes, s. of Pseeios, priest
Geneva
Bibliothèque
1882–1897 by Edouard Naville for Jules Nicole
23
718
notary Ioannes (?)
Pushkin Museum
ИГ-4812
l. 3 ἐν κώμῃ Λευκογίῳ
contract
minuscule
1. Aur. Pekysios, s. of Apakyrios (†), s. of Koueisan
2. Sambas and Theodoros, brothers
from V. S. Golenischev between 1908–191224
8th c.
notary Ioannes
Pushkin Museum
ИГ-4814
sale (πρᾶσις)
minuscule
1. Maria, d. of Anoup (†)from V. S. Golenischev between 1908–191225719
P.Grenf. 2 105
(MS. Gr. Arab. d. 75 (P))
l. 4: ἐρχο(μένου) ἀπὸ Λευκ(ογίου)
entagion
minuscule
1. Zoubeir, s. of Ziada
2. Senouthios, s. of Aioulios Amei( ) via Laios
SC 32373
presented by F.C. Conybeare or bought from B. P. Grenfell in 1896
26719
P.Grenf. 2 106
(MS. Gr. Arab. d. 75 (P))
l. 4: Μην(ᾶ) ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ Λευκογεί(ο)υ
entagion
minuscule
1. Zoubeir, s. of Ziada
2. Menas, s. of Baouch, s. of Menas
SC 32373
presented by F.C. Conybeare or bought from B.P. Grenfell in 1896
719
SB 18 13269
(P.Berol. 7887)
–
cf. 21, 26
tax receipt
minuscule, seal
Menas, s. of Senouthios BaouchBerlin Sammlung Brugsch 1891, Fayum719
SB 18 13270
(P.Berol. 7885)
–
cf. 21, 26 (brother)
tax receipt
minuscule, seal
Georgios, s. of Senouthios Baouch
Berlin Sammlung Brugsch 1891
Fayum
722
SB 18 13268
(P.Berol. 7886)
–
cf. 21, 26
tax receipt
minuscule, seal
Menas, s. of Senouthios Baouch
Berlin Sammlung Brugsch 1891
Fayum
278th c.
CPR 4 171
The provenance is based on an Oxyrhynchite village mentioned in the text, but the papyrus was either found elsewhere, possibly somewhere in the Heracleopolite nome, or it originated from a small, earlier find in the area. Official excavations at Oxyrhynchos did not begin until 1895/6, while CPR II, in which the papyrus was first published as no. CXLIX (and which includes at least one other papyrus with the same provenance, no. CL), appeared in 1895.
(P.Vindob. K 4010)
from Oxy (?)
l. 17: ἀπὸ χ(ωρίου) Λευκωγ(ίου) μαρτηρῶ
ἀσφάλεια
Coptic
Witness (correction of Lajos Berkes via PN)
Vienna
from Theodor Graf “aus Oxyrhynchus”
Appendix ΙI: Corrections to papyri
BGU 1 315
This compromissum is drawn up by the notary Georgios and is datable to the years 627 or 642; the earlier date is probably more likely. A fuller (κναφεύς), Apa Ioulios, son of the deceased Ioseph, and a shop-keeper (κάπηλος), Ioseph, son of Aioulios, agree to have Apa Hol, another shop-keeper, as arbitrator in their dispute. This is repeated in the endorsement, read as † κομπρόμισσ(ον) γενόμε(νον) μεταξ(ὺ) Α[ὐρ(ηλίου) ἄπα] Ἰ[ου]λίου κν[αφέως υἱοῦ] Ἰ[ωσ]ὴφ κ[αί in the ed. pr. The names should be corrected to Aπα̣ Ἰο̣[υ]λίου̣ κν[α]φ̣(έως) (κ̣α̣ὶ̣) Ἰω̣σ̣ὴφ καπ̣ή̣λ̣(ου). μεταξξ has a plural abbreviation to indicate that there was more than one party (cf. P.Prag. 1 49 and SB 1 5681, see below). The rest of the docket is covered by cardboard.
CPR 7 44
This large and patchy document consists of two fragments and concerns a division of property (διαίρεσις, frg. 2.28) between two men, Makari(o)s, son of Naaraous Papsios and Petamos alias Kapareous, son of Phib. The former omits the first alias-name of his father, Naaraous, in the hypographe, the second his own first alias-name. The text is not easy to understand because of its fragmentary state, orthography and linguistic peculiarities.
The name Kapareous (TM Nam 19571) is otherwise unattested. It first appears in l. 3 to denote a kella (kellia in the papyrus) of his: κελλίας \Κα/παρέως – the ending survives only in traces. In l. 6 we have Πεταμος ὁ καὶ Κα̣παρέους τ̣ὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος. Ιn Petamos, which is peculiar, to say the least, the alpha is difficult, but the name is attested twice in earlier periods (P. Hels. 1 24.v2 [Heracleopolis, 163/162 BCE]); P.Princ. 1 9.6 [Arsinoe, 31]); the final sigma reaches the baseline and almost has a descender. In Κα̣παρέους, the final sigma is written in ligature with a following stroke. I would rather read Κα̣παρέου, εἰ τ̣ὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος. This also finds confirmation in the signature, l. 29, where there is no space for a sigma. The name is thus apparently indeclinable, and reads Καπαρεου in all cases, and not Καπαρευς, Καπαρεως, or Καπαρει, as the editor assumed. Read Καπαρέου also in l. 3 accordingly.
The beginning of l. 17 is very fragmentary: δε ̣ ̣ ̣ε ̣ ̣πσα[ ̣ ̣] ̣. It can be improved, though it is still not properly understood: δε ̣ ̣θέντ̣ως α̣ ̣ [; perhaps it stands for δὲ α̣ὐ̣θεν<τι>κῶς.
In l. 24–25, ἕκαστον ἐξ ἡμῶ̣ν̣ κρατεῖν καὶ κυρι̣εύειν καὶ δεσποτεύειν τὸν [- - - ] | σὺν τέκνοις ̣ ̣ ̣ (the rest of the line remains unread), I would read instead: σὺν τέκνοις αὐτοῦ Μα̣κ[α]ρ̣(ίου) κ̣υ̣ρι̣ε̣ύ̣ε̣ι̣ν (κ̣α̣ὶ̣) δε̣σ̣π̣οτ̣(εύειν) (κ̣α̣ὶ̣) ο̣ἰ̣κο̣δ(ομῆσαι) (κ̣α̣ὶ̣) κρ̣α̣τ̣ε̣ῖ̣ν̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣, apparently repeating the phrase from the line before.
In l. 28, the stipulation at the end of the line, ἐπερω(τηθέντες) ὁμολογ(ήσαμεν) † † † has indeed a plural abbreviation, read ἐπερω(τηθέντες) (επερρ pap.) ὁ̣μω̣λογ(ήσαμεν), l. ὡμολογήσαμεν.
In ll. 29–30, we find the concluding hypographe: † Αὐρήλιος Καπαρε̣ὺ̣ς ̣ σ̣τ̣ο̣ι̣χ̣ε̣ῖ̣ μ̣ο̣ι̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ | ἔγρ̣αψα [ὑπὲ]ρ αὐτοῦ μ̣ὴ̣ εἰ[δότος γρά]μ̣[μ]α̣τ̣[α]; but what survives is more stubstantial:
This should be the agrammatos-clause attested for Middle Egypt; on the Arsinoite one, see Kovarik 2009: 222–223.
P.Gen. 4 181 and P.Bodl. 1 73
The text of the Geneva papyrus has already been corrected extensively by D. Hagedorn in Kruse 2013: 230, but several doubtful points remain, not helped by the poor quality of the online photo. The signatures of the ed. pr., ll. 14–15, read ἐγ\ὼ/ Ψ̣ε̣[είου παρὼν ἐπιδέδωκα.] † ̣ ἐγὼ Ἀπολλώνιο(ς) π[α]ρὼν ἐπιδέδωκα † † ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης νο(τάριος) μαρ̣[τυρῶ τῇ διαλύσει.]
However, as van Minnen 2013: 325 has already suggested, this document is a judgement, not a dialysis. This is evident from ἐπιδέδωκα (cf. n. 6) in the only completely preserved signature at the beginning of l. 15, which indicates the subscription of the arbitrators. This means that the one who signs there cannot be the same as the conflicting parties mentioned in the document. The name in the second signature was already corrected by both Hagedorn and van Minnen to: Ἀπολλὼ υἱὸ(ς) Πραοῦ –– he is the first arbitrator; the supposed witness subscription in the same line, also corrected by both to † ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης υἱὸ(ς) Μα ̣[- - - ἐπιδέδωκα], is the signature of the second arbitrator. Hagedorn has suggested Μαθθαίου or Ματθαίου; the first option seems more likely to me. I agree with van Minnen that the supplement in l. 15 (τῇ διαλύσει) should be changed – to τῷ ὅρῳ or τῇ δίκῃ/κρίσει, see l. 11n. For the first signature at the end of l. 14, ἐγ\ὼ/ Ψ̣ε̣[είου, I concur with the correction of Hagedorn who tentatively reads ἐγρά(φη) instead, with supralinear alpha, μη([νί)], like in the judgement P.Paramone 16.15–16: † ὅρος ἐγράφη μηνὶ Φαμενὼ̣θ̣ κϛ τ̣ῆς δ ἰνδ(ικτίονος). The people mentioned in the body of the document, the priest Ψέειος (πρεσβύτερος, translated in the edition as “l’ancien”), in l. 8 and 9 and the deacon Apollôs (read as Ἀπολλώ(νιος) in the ed. pr.) in l. 12, are the conflict parties. They were taken to be the signatories, but it is the arbitrators who sign, and it is a coincidence that one of them is also called Apollôs (the name is in the genitive, Ἀπολλῶ, in both cases).
An Arsinoite provenance was suggested in the edition and the name Pseeios in ll. 5, 8, 9, and 13 confirms a middle Egyptian origin, but the Arsinoite nome is not likely. Hagedorn suggests the Oxyrhynchite nome, because of the use of χρυσοῦ in l. 10 and the name Πραοῦς (ΤΜ Nam 11771) in l. 15, which he described as a “typisch oxyrhynchitischer Name”, but Praous is attested also in the Arsinoite and Heracleopolite areas, for example in Leukogion, in the already mentioned P.Bodl. 1 73.12. Several other points indicate a Heracleopolite origin.
Paleographic evidence suggests that the papyrus likely dates from the early Arab period in the second half of the 7th century, or possibly even later, rather than from the early 7th century as proposed by the editors. The notary signs in Greek and we would expect an Arsinoite notarial completio, also post-conquest, to be Latinate. However, this feature disappears soon in the Arab period in the Heracleopolite documentation,
The very few post-conquest Oxyrhynchite contracts also have a Latinate signature and show that there was no change in the decades after the conquest, like in the Arsinoite evidence; see SB 6 8987 (644–645) P.Wisc. 1. 11 (646/661/676), PSI 1 52 (647), PSI 10 1122 (651–652?), P.Michael. 35 (652?), P.Merton 2 98 (mid 7th c.).
see Kovarik 2023: 96–97 and Kovarik forthcoming.
The notary’s name, Ἄπα Ἰε̣[ρ]ε̣μί\ου/ according to the ed. pr., was again already corrected by Hagedorn who proposes to read it as † Αππα Κ[ύ]ρ̣ου υἱοῦ [. In Heracleopolite deeds, patronyms within the notarial completio are, so far, only attested from the Arab period, and exclusively from Leukogion (see above, l. 15n.). Specifically, the delta in δι also resembles that in the signature of P.Bodl. 1 73, another notary from Leukogion. I would thus propose a Leukogion provenance for P.Gen. 4 181 and possibly also a familial relationship between these two notaries. I would, in turn, suggest reading P.Bodl. 1 73, whose notarial signature has been read as:
This suggests that P.Gen. 4 181 may have been acquired together with P.Gen. 4 189, which was drawn up in Leukogion as well. The inventory numbers are P. Gr. 151 and P. Gr. 149.
Another correction to P.Bodl. 1 73.10 is Μη̣ν̣ᾶς υἱ(ος) Ἀπολλῶ instead of Μη̣ν̣ᾶ\ς/ Ὡρ̣απολλῶ. The abbreviation stroke running through iota is unmistakable.
P.Gen. 4 189
Corrections have already been suggested by Diethart and Hasitzka 2011: 239 and Gascou 2015, but some problems still remain.
At least the notary’s signature in l. 18 can now be emended in light of the new papyrus and the Moscow piece, restoring the name as:
[† δι’ ἐμοῦ Ἰωάν]ν̣[ου] υἱο̣ῦ̣ Φιβ ἐγράφη † †
SB 1 4847
This is a fragment of a 6th- or 7th-century compromissum in the Louvre, the text of which can be improved by the online photo and the help of parallels such as PL III/1029.13–17, P.Prag. 1 49.21–28, SB 1 5681.33–38, and SB 14 12194.19–24. In what follows, the reading of the editio princeps is given on the left, and a revised version on the right.
Only the beginning and the endorsement of this seventh-century compromissum have been preserved. A few corrections have already been made and recorded in the BL. The first party in l. 7 is a certain Paulos who is defined by his employer as ὑπουργὸς τῆς ἐνδόξου ὑπηρεσίας Στρατηγίου τοῦ ὑπερφυ[εστ]άτου πατρικίου (ll. 8–9), followed by the filiation, υἱοῦ Θεοδότ̣ου Κίλικος (ll. 9–10), and the second party, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἑτέρου μέρους Μαροῦς [– – –]της [– – – χ]ωρὶς κυρίου [χρηματίζουσα – – –] (ll. 10–11). I suggest reading υἱοῦ Θεοδότ̣ου Κῖλιξ, which was already suggested in BL 8 320; BL 10 183 adds the supplement of ἀνδρός and BL 11 197 the name of the father; but the name of Marous’ father alone is not enough to fill the lacuna. The mother’s name must have followed as well, cf. BGU 1 317.3–4 (Arsinoe, 580/581): θυγά]τηρ τοῦ μακαρίου Γεωργίο(υ) μητρὸς ἄμα Ἡραίδος [χωρὶς κυρίου χρημα]τίζουσα.
Here, ἀνδρός should probably be added as well, suggested by contemporary Arsinoite parallels (P.Grenf. 2 85.3–4 (536), SPP 20 139.3–4 (531), and SB 24 15899.10 (608). This addition would necessitate longer supplements in the surrounding lines. For example, one might reconstruct [ταύτην τὴν παροῦσαν ἔγγραφον] ὁμολογίαν in line 2; cf. CPR 19 50.4–5 (7th c.) rather than τὴν [π]α̣ροῦσ̣α̣ν ἔγγραφον ὁμολογ[ίαν.
The whole passage would then read: ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἑτέρου μέρους Μαροῦς θ̣[υ]γ̣[ά]τηρ Τιμ̣[οθέου μητρὸς Ν.Ν. χ]ωρὶς κυρίου [ἀνδρὸς χρηματίζουσα – – –].
In the endorsement, the papyrus breaks off after κομπρόμισσ(ον) γεν, taken as γεν(όμενον), but the abbreviation γεν[όμε(νον) or γεν[άμε(νον) is more likely. There is also a cross before † κομπρόμισσ(ον) and a staurogramm before the invocation written below the endorsement, which was read as a cross and a few letters that are or are not there; therefore, instead of † ἐν ὀν[όμ]ατι τοῦ κυρίου καὶ δεσπ[ότου read ⳨ ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου καὶ δε̣σ[πότου.
SB 1 5681
This is another example of the same style of compromissum as BGU 1 315. The first party consists of two priests, both named Georgios, sons of Ioannes (ll. 6–9). The first Georgios has an alias mentioned at the beginning of line 8 ̣ ̣[ ̣]μ̣άρωνος. This should be read as Σα̣μ̣βαρί̣ω̣νος, with a small alpha and majuscule-my, cf. CPR 14 10.6 (Arsinoe, 556–578).
The reading at the beginning of l. 21, ἐν|ταῦθα [ἐ]ν τῷ Ἀρσινοίτῃ, appears too short for the available space; a better restoration is ἐν|ταῦθα̣ ἐ̣ν̣ τ̣ῷ̣ αὐ̣τῷ Ἀρσινοίτῃ.
The clumsy hypographe can be corrected in a number of small details: The first Georgios signs in his own hand across the space of 4 lines. Instead of of υἱὸς Ἰώννου [στοι]χῖ μ[οι] τ[όδε] τὼ κομπρόμισον (corrected from [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ω κομπρόμισσον [ὡς] πρόκ[ει]ται in BL 12 183) in ll. 40–42, I read Ἰωάννου [στοι]χῖ μ̣[οι] τὼ κομπρόμισον [ὡ]ς. In the following subscriptions in ll. 42–43, † Γεώργιος πρ(εσβύτερος). (hand 4) Φοι[βά]μ̣μ[ω]ν ὁ̣ προκ(είμενος) στοιχεῖ ἡμῖν, ὡς πρ(όκειται), we find a plural formulation instead: Γεώργιος πρ(εσβύτερος) (καὶ) Φοι[βά]μ̣μ[ω]ν οἱ προκ(είμενοι), that is, one communal signature despite the fact that the signers belong to different parties.
The notary’s name in the completio in the next line was corrected in BL 8 322 from Eliu to Fib esemio(the), which should be read as esemioth.
The docket has † κο̣μπρ(όμισσον) ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ μεταξὺ̣ Γεωργίου̣, which should be corrected to † κομπρόμισσ(ον) γενόμε(νον) μεταξ(ύ), again with the plural-abbreviation μεταξξ, as in BGU 1 315 and P.Prag. 1 49.
PL III/1029, ed. Harrauer and Pintaudi (2021): 56–57
This is a new and complete compromissum which is exactly dated by the era of Diocletian: ἔτους Διοκλ(η)τ(ιανοῦ) τξα Θῶθ κϛ γ ἰνδ(ικτίωνος) in l. 3, which corresponds to 23 September 645. The notary is already known from P.Ross. Georg. 3 53, dated by era-year to 674/675 (τϙα), month lost. Indeed, the second cypher, which is split by a tear on a fold-line, should be read as a qoppa in PL III/1029 as well. Our papyrus therefore dates to the same year 675, τϙα (the era-year runs concurrently to the indiction-year starting in Epeiph, see CSBE2: 66).
The two conflict parties are Aurelios Apa Hol, fruit gardener (πωμαρίτης), son of Apa Ision (ll. 5–6), and Aurelios Phoibammon, sandal maker (σανδαλᾶς), son of Ptollon (ll. 6–7). The reading of this patronym Πτόλλωνος, is again disturbed by a break. As already mentioned by the editors, the standard form of the name is Πτολλίων, and I believe this is also what we have here: read Πτολλί̣ων.
In the following lines 7–9, the origin of the two parties is given: ἀπὸ τῆς | Ἀρσινοι{νοι}τῶν πόλεω̣[ς] ἀπὸ ἀμφ[όδ]ου μητ̣ρ̣οπόλ(εως) Ψαππαλλίου | ὁ δὲ Φοιβάμμων Κλεοπατρίου. Psappalliou and Kleopatriou are both city quarters, and we would expect a parallel construction: the one from here, the other from there. Line 8 has to be revised to read ἀπὸ ἀμφό̣δ̣[ο]υ ὁ μὲν Α̣π̣α Ολ Ψαππαλλ(ί)ου to correspond to the second part – the name of the city quarter at the end of the line has been abbreviated internally.
The name of the amphodon Ψαππαλλίου – attested also in BGU 1 305.7, 12 (556) and CPR 14 11.9–10 (578), is more often written Ψανπαλλίου. However, an examination of all known attestations shows that the spelling ππ is consistent across all examples. See the photo of SB 1 4903.2 and the photo of SB 1 4899.2 (ca. 630–645) and also P.Muench. 3 100.6 (574), SB 26 16362.24 (6th-7th c.), and SPP 20 243.9. The letter ny, often mistaken for pi and vice versa, cannot form a ligature with the following letter. The variant Ψανπαλλίου does not exist.
This part is followed by their agreement to have the matter judged by arbitrators in ll. 9–11: ὁμολογοῦμεν | δικάσασθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁριστὰς | τὴμ̣ δημοσία[ν] ὀφιλὰν τῆς α̣ὐ̣τ̣ῆς πόλεως. This passage is problematic for a variety of reasons. First, the reading of τούς is difficult; tau seems to be written in two strokes and has a superfluous ascender above; perhaps something was corrected here. Then, the expression denoting the arbitrators at the end of l. 10 presents paleographical difficulties. An initial omicron appears unlikely; rather, the presence of an ascender in the first letter seems undeniable. On this basis, I would consider reading κριτάς instead. However, this term is not yet attested for arbitrators in this specific context. That said, their decision is called κρίσις in l. 13, which is an alternative to δίκη, also used here in l. 12, and to ὅρος, found on the verso, see below and l. 11n. A reading ὡριστάς cannot be entirely excluded either; on the verso we also find ὥρος for ὅρος.
Their remit is described in the next line, where we should read τῆς δημοσίας φυλακῆς; the arbitrators work for the public prison. Parallels have ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁριστὰς ἐποικ̣[ίου in SB 14 12194.17 or ἐ̣[π]ὶ ὁριστ̣ο̣ῦ τοῦ αὐ̣τ(οῦ) νομοῦ in P.Prag. 1 49.19, where the arbitrators also remain anonymous.
In l. 16 the abbreviation of χρ(υσίου) has what looks like a supralinear ypsilon and should be resolved χρυ(σίου); the kyria-clause κύριον τὸ κομπρώμισσον is actually correctly written κομπρόμισσον. The stipulation ἐπερ(ωτηθέντες) ὡμολ(ογήσαμεν) in the following line 17 has a plural abbreviation, ωμμ instead of ωμολ. The verb in the hypographe, which starts at the end of the line with Ἄπα Ὃλ καὶ Φοιβ(άμμων) στοιχ(oῦμεν) ἡμῖν , should be resolved στοιχ(εῖ) ἡμῖν. In the second witness subscription, l. 20, read μαρτυρῶ instead of μαρτυρo. And in the last witness subscription in ll. 20–21 the abbreviation is κομπρομίσῳ ⟨ὡ⟩ς, not κομπρομ(ίσσῳ) ὡς.
Finally, the notarial completio should be read θμγ di emu Cosma Fib δι’ ἐμοῦ Φιβ ϙ θ, cf. Kovarik 2019: 251, where a Latinate signature of the same notary in P.Ross. Georg. 3 53 (674/675) is corrected. PL III/1029 shows the only complete Latinate-Greek signature (the same notary also appears with his father’s name in Greek in SPP 3 422 and in SB 1 4699; SB 28 17202 might concern the same notary with another fragmentary Latinate signature).
The summary in the endorsement of this compromissum reads: † Ὧρος Φοιβ(άμμων) σανταλ(ᾶς) (καὶ) Ἄπα Ὃλ πομ(αρί)τ(ης), l. πωμ(αρί)τ(ης) . The first word in the docket usually indicates the type of the contract, and we would expect κομπρόμισσον, but instead it is labeled as a judgement, that is ὥρος, l. ὅρος. The editors took ὥρος as a spelling mistake for Αὐρήλιος and resolve the whole phrase in nominative. Instead, we have the judgement of Phoibammon und Apa Hol, and the names and professions need to be resolved in genitive. Read thus † ὥρος (l. ὅρος) Φοιβάμμ(ωνος) σανταλᾶ̣ (καὶ) Aπα Ολ πομ(αρί)τ(ου), l. πωμ(αρί)τ(ου).
The second part of the docket, after a small vacat, which is transcribed as χ ̣ ̣η̣λ̣ιγ̣ρ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ μ̣ι̣σ̣θ̣οπρασείας τξα †, is also doubtful, but the quality of the photo does not help. Complete endorsements of compromissa mostly show the construction with μεταξύ, see e.g. P.Prag. 1 49: † κομπρόμισσ(ον) γενόμε(νον) μεταξ(ὺ) Ἰωάννου γρ̣[αμμ]α(τέως) [καὶ Παύλο]υ̣ (καὶ) Πεκυσίου †. In our case the structure is different and the first part already gives the necessary information. In addition, perhaps the reason for the dispute is given, the fine of 12 solidi, or the names of the arbitrators, who however remain anonymous on the recto. Perhaps, the initial chi points to the second option, χρυ(σίου) νο(μισμάτια) ιβ λό(γῳ) π̣ροστ[ίμου, but this is mere conjecture. The presumed reference to the year τξα at the very end is obsolete with the correction above. Instead, these letters look like τρα or τρου, and could be read with the three preceding letters as εἰατροῦ, either as a personal name (cf. SPP 32 68.3: Εἰατροῦ) or the profession ἰατρός (physician) of one of the anonymous arbitrators. Unfortunately, the remaining letters are too hard to read satisfactorily.
CSBE2 (2004) = R.S. Bagnall and K.A. Worp, Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt. Second Edition. Leiden.Chepel, E. (2018) “Russian Collections of Greek Papyri and History of their Publication: An Overview (With the Catalogue of Greek Papyri held at the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow),” Egypt and Neighbouring Countries 3: 57–62.Diethart, J.M. and M. Hasitzka (2011) “Eine ungewöhnliche koptische Schreibhelferformel in P.Gen. IV 189 und Korrekturen zum griechischen und koptischen Teil der Urkunde,” ZPE 177: 237–239.Falivene, M.R. (1998) The Herakleopolite Nome. A Catalogue of the Toponyms, with Introduction and Commentary (American Studies in Papyrology 37). Atlanta.Gagos, T. and P. van Minnen (1994) Settling a Dispute. Toward a Legal Anthropology of Late Antique Egypt. Ann Arbor.Gascou, J. (2014) “Un nouveau document sur le cursus publicus (P.Würzb. inv. 48), ” APF 60: 209–216.Gascou, J. (2015) “Korr. Tyche 782: P. Gen. IV 189,” Tyche 30: 219.Gonis, N. (2001) “Reconsidering Some Fiscal Documents from Early Islamic Egypt,” ZPE 137: 225–228.Gonis, N. (2023) “Sealed Gold for Wine,” ZPE 227: 124–126.Gonis, N. (2024) “Abbreviations in Late Documents Resolved (III),” APF 70: 141–150.Harrauer, H. and R. Pintaudi (2021) “Ein neuer Kompromißvertrag (PL III/1029),” AnalPap 33: 55–65.Kovarik, S. (2009) “Korr. Tyche 629–631: Zur arsinoitischen Agrammatos-Formel,” Tyche 24: 222–223.Kovarik, S. (2012) “Der Brief in der Urkunde. Zur Briefform in spätantiken Verträgen,” in U. Yiftach-Firanko (ed.), Law, State, Society and the Epistolary Format in the Ancient World. Proceedings of a Colloquium held at the American Academy in Rome (28–30.9.2008). Wiesbaden: 201–217.Kovarik, S. (2019) “Korr. Tyche 922: P.Ross. Georg. III 53,” Tyche 34: 251.Kovarik, S. (2020) “Der herakleopolitische Notar Paulos: Ein Kompromiss aus dem umayyadischen Ägypten — der bisher späteste griechische Vertrag,” Tyche 35: 55–70.Kovarik, S. (2023) “The Evolution of the Notarial Signature in Late Antique Egypt. A diachronic comparison of the Middle Egyptian Evidence (Province of Arcadia: Arsinoite, Heracleopolite, Oxyrhynchite),” in A. Ghignoli, M. Boccuzzi, A. Monte, N. Sietis (eds.), Segni, sogni, materie e scrittura dall'Egitto tardoantico all'Europa Carolingia. Roma: 71–118.Kovarik, S. (2023b) “A Generous Salter and a Noble Landlady. Two New Contracts from Late Antique Arsinoe in the British Library,” BASP 60: 185–212.Kovarik, S. (forthcoming) “Continuity and change in the Notarial practice of Middle Egypt,” in S. Esders, F. Krueger, S. Polla, T.S. Richter, Chr. Wickham (eds.), The 8th Century. Patterns of Transition in Economy and Trade Throughout the Late Antique, Early Medieval and Islamicate Mediterranean in Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Millennium. Berlin – New York.Kovarik, S. (forthcoming b) “The minuscule in Greek legal documents from early Arab Egypt: tradition, functionality and deviation,” in: D. Bianconi (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference ‘La corsiva bizantina nei secoli VII-VIII. Articolazioni, sviluppi, contesti’. Roma (forthcoming).Kreuzsaler, C. (2010) “Die Beurkundung außergerichtlicher Streitbeilegung in den ägyptischen Papyri,” in Ch. Gastgeber (ed.), Quellen zur byzantinischen Rechtspraxis. Aspekte der Textüberlieferung, Paläographie und Diplomatik. Wien: 17–26.Kruse, Th. (2013) “Urkundenreferat 2010,” APF 59: 208–266.van Minnen, P. (2013) “Review of S. Gaffino Moeri, S. Gallnö, N. Poget, and P. Schubert, Les Papyrus de Genève; Genève 2010,” BASP 50: 323–326.Modrzejewski, J. (1952) “Private Arbitration in the Law of Greco-Roman Egypt,” JJP 6: 239–256.Morelli, F. (2004) “P.Paramone 16–17. Due sententiae arbitri e una famiglia di affaristi poco onesti,” in J.M.S. Cowey and B. Kramer, Paramone. Editionen und Aufsätze von Mitgliedern des Heidelberger Instituts für Papyrologie zwischen 1982 und 2004. Munich – Leipzig: 174-198.Morelli, F. (2008) “SB XXVI 16222: due patrizi e un Liciniano,” Tyche 23: 139–157.Sampson, C.M. (2022) “The David. G. Hogarth Papyri,” Pylon 2: Article 5.Schiller, A.A. (1968) “The Budge Papyrus of Columbia University,” JARCE 7: 79–118.Simon, D. (1969) Untersuchungen zum Justinianischen Zivilprozeß (Münchener Beiträge 54). München.Steinwenter, A. (1925) Die Streitbeendigung durch Urteil, Schiedsspruch und Vergleich nach griechischem Rechte (Münchener Beiträge 8). München.Urbanik, J. (2007) “Compromesso o processo? Alternativa risoluzione di conflitti e tutela dei diritti nella prassi della tarda antichità,” in E. Cantarella, Symposion 2005. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte. Wien: 377-400.Wojtczak, M. (2016) “Legal aspects of dispute resolution in Late Antiquity. The case of P.Mich.XIII 659,” JJP 46: 275–308.Ziegler, K.-H. (1971) Das private Schiedsgericht im antiken römischen Recht (Münchener Beiträge 58). München.
CompromissumPapyri.info10002751000275pylon.7.4pylon;7;4HeidelbergInstitut für PapyrologieMS. Gr. Class. e 135 (P)Papyrus15.618.8Leukogion (Herakleopolites)17. März 713 (Jahr unsicher)17. März 728 (Jahr unsicher)
LeukogionHerakleopolitesÄgypten
This file encoded to comply with EpiDoc Guidelines and Schema version 8
† On the one side Pekysios, priest, son of Naaraous, and on the other side Sambas (?), son of Naaraous Pkanee, both from the village Leukogion of the Heracleopolite nome, make the present compromissum with each other of their own free will. Because they have a disagreement with each other about some matters between them and they could not agree among themselves, they chose of their own free will Kosmas, son of Papas, and Menas, son of Antonios, that they should make a judgement for them; the party that does not abide by the judgement they deliver, should hand over as fine to the complying party 4 gold solidi. Written on the 21st of the month of Phamenoth, 11th indiction †. (Coptic) I, Pikosh, priest, I agree with the compromissum. † Written by me, Ioannes, son of Phib † †.