A family archive from Siut: from papyri in the British Museum, including an account of a trial before the laocritae in the year B.C. 170

118 Pages·1934·35.63 MB·English

by  Herbert Thompson

A FAMILY ARCHIVE
FROM SIUT
FROM PAPYRI IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM
INCLUDING
AN ACCOUNT OF A TRIAL BEFORE
THE LAOCRITAE IN THE YEAR B.C.170
Edited by
Sm HERBERT THOMPSON
HON. D.LITT. OXFORD, F.B.A.
Fellow of University College,L ondon ,
TEXT
OXFORD
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1934
PREFACE
T
HE first proposal that I should edit this interesting
group of papyri came from Sir Frederic Kenyon,
then the Director of the British Museum, shortly after
the Trustees had acquired them. The late Dr. H. R.
PLATES AND LETTERPRESS
Hall, the Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Depart
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
AT THE ment, gave me permission to work on them, and his
UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD successor Mr. Sidney Smith has afforded me every
BY JOHN JOHNSON, PRINTER
facility. I am much obliged to all these gentlemen; and
TO THE UNIVERSITY
I must add a word of acknowledgement to my friend
Mr. S. R. K. Glanville, who has made some valuable
suggestions which are recorded where they occur.
CONTENTS
l'AGI!
PREFACE .
V
...
ABBREVIATIONS. vm
INTRODUCTION
.
§
l. THE PAPYRI lX
§
2. PEDIGREE: CHRONOLOGY: STRATEGI IX
§ 3. HISTORY OF THE CASE AND THE TRIAL Xll
§ 4. LEGAL NOTES • . xvm
TRANSLITERATION, TRANSLATION,AND
NOTES OF
B.M. eg. 10591 RECTO ( = B)
l
,, 10575 ( = A) 35
10591 VERSO ( = Vo) 47
"
10592-600 ( = 592-600) 63
GLOSSARY:
WORDS AND NUMERALS
PERSONAL NAMES: (a) EGYPTIAN: ( b) FOREIGN
DIVINE NAMES
PLACE NAMES
INTRODUCTION
ABBREVIATIONS §
l. THE PAPYRI
T HE group of demotic papyri here published came into the British Museum by pur
THE papyri are quoted as follows:
chase in the autumn of 1923. Nothing was said as to their provenance; but the
A= B.M. eg. 10575.
B = B.M. eg. 10591 recto. contents show that they must have come from Assiut or its neighbourhood.
Vo = B.M. eg. 10591 verso. Hitherto, few records of Ptolemaic times have been found in or about the ancient Siut.
592-600 = B.M. eg. 10592-10600. In 1906 Sir Flinders Petrie found a certain amount of demotic material at Rifeh (Shasho
lep ), a few miles South of Assiut, which has never been published (c f. Petrie, Gizeh and
Ryl.= F. Ll. Griffith, Catalogue of domestic papyri in the John Rylands Library, Rifeh, 1907, p. 31); and in 1923 Henri Sottas furnished a compte-rendu of some earlier
Manchester 1909, vol. iii.
demotic papyri of the XXVIthd yn. and Persian period, which were found in a large tomb
Spieg. Dern. Gr.= Spiegelberg, Demotische Grammatik 1925.
near Assiut (Ann. Serv. XXIII3 4 seq.). These have since been published by Spiegelberg
His editions of the demotic papyri at Berlin (including those in the Hauswaldt col
in vol. III of the Cat. gen. des Antiquites Eg. du Mus. du Caire, 1932, nos. 50058-62.
lection and from Elephantine), Cairo, Strassburg, and Brussels, are usually quoted
The new documents constitute the family archive of officials connected with the
simply as P. Berl., &c., without his name, in order to save space, the greatness of his
necropolis of Siut as lectors (Kherheb) in the reigns of Ptolemy Epiphanes and Philo
achievement in the field of demotic studies being universally acknowledged.
metor. Certain family arrangements made by one Petetum among the offspring of his
two successive marriages gave rise to differences among the children after his death,
BRACKETS
which culminated in a lawsuit in a native Court. We have an almost complete series of
[ ] square = a lacuna in text.
all the documents on which the lawsuit was based, and an official copy of the proceedings
( ) round= additions by editor.
() angular= a mistaken omission in text. at the Trial itself, and the decision of the judges.
{} braces= superfluous letters in text. The principal document is a papyrus, originally 9 ft. 6 in. long (285 cm.) by 12¾ in.
[[]] doubleb racket = a deletion in text. in height (32 cm.). For the purposes of preservation it has been cut up and mounted in
six frames. It is numbered Brit. Mus. eg. 10591 and has writing on both sides. The
recto contains ten columns, the writing on which is about 8 in. high with a column
width of varying size from 5 to 8 in.· This recto is quoted in this work as B, and it is
As regards the transliteration, I have adopted the perhaps illogical but simple method first introduced by entirely taken up with the report of the Trial.
Professor F. Ll. Griffith. The sole object of transliteration is, in my opinion, to make a difficult script acces On the verso are seven smaller columns of varied size, containing four separate docu
sible to those who are not yet experts in it-a purely practical question which should not, I think, be con
ments filling respectively cols. i and ii, col. iii, col. iv and cols. v-vii. They are quoted as
fom1ded with Etymology. As soon as the majnrity of Egyptian scholars arc a~ famili::.itw· ith demotic ~s they
are with hieroglyphic.a nd hieratic writing, tbert~ will be no further need of tnutslittration, lt is only a tem Vo i &c.
pnrnry coin'~tiiencc; and to tcpr~cnt the::w: ord for 'hnntt' by if.r·t( phom:ticlllly djerl}, when we know that the
A long deed containing a donation by a father to his son of a third share in a long list
Ptolemaic writing represents the soun<l t6t, Joe~ not seem to me to make tl}r simplicity. I gladly indorsc
the opinion nf Pmfc.ssor Griffith in his recent r~marh ot1 the ~uojctt in J.F:..4. xviii. HJS; hnt I would of property is contained on a papyrus, Brit. Mus. eg. 10575, and is quoted as A.
suggt"St that, for the demotic of the 26th dynast_yl Uld Persian pcrioJ, a more modified trnnsliter,ttion in the A group of separate papyri, numbered Brit. Mus. eg. 10592-600, contains various
direction uf :-l."K . Egypti~n is desirabk, while for the late Ptoknrnic, srn.:h ;1s is found in the prt~ent volume,
documents connected with the family and more or less nearly related to the Trial. They
one based in the main on Coptic is the best.
are quoted as 592-600.
§
2. THE PEDIGREE AND CHRONOLOGY
The persons chiefly concerned in the story are :
Petetum son of Tuot and his two successive wives (a) Tshenese and (b) Ewe.
1.
ii. Tuot son of Petetum and Tshenese, and husband of Chratianch (the latter being
the Plaintiff in the Trial).
b
INTRODUCTION
X INTRODUCTION xi
iii. Tefhape son of Petetum and Ewe (the Defendant in the Trial).
9 Philometor Winter (B.C. 173-2). Tuot and Tefhape worked the land together.
The family pedigree is as follows :
B iv 1, v 4.
Pedigree
Choiak 17 (B.C. 172 Jan. 19). Marriage of Petetum's daughter Teteim
Matrai
hotep to Pegosh s. Pybes. Set out in 593.
I I
I - Payni 17 (B.C. 172 July 18). Pegosh acknowledges receipt of his wife's
W,pwT,: -•u
Tuot Tshon7t~ T,e~',' dowry. Set out in 594.
10 Thoth 29 (B.C.1 72 Nov. 2). Tuot and Tefhape lease their land to Agylos.
T Tshenese~ 1 Petetum I Ewec;' Dionysos Hor
Petewepwoi TsheneseT I L_ I Pybes I Teteese~ Biv1,v4;595.
T I I Payni 7 (B.C.1 71 July 8). Receipt for barley(?) given by royal scribes to
Chratiund1· 1' Tuot Tshentuotc;' Tefhape Teteimhotepc;' = Pekusis "
Tuot. Set out in 596.
l ----- I
I I Thoth 29 (B.c. 171 Nov. 2). Tefhape leased his land to Heraclides.
Pch":wr:pwoi Other Sons
B v 5. Set out in 597.
A chronological Table of all the stages in the story is appended:
Phamenoth 21 (B.c. 170 Apr. 23). Tefhape made a petition to Spem
(A = B.M. eg. 10575; B = 10591 recto; Vo = 10591 verso) " minis the epistates. Set out in 598.
14 Philopator Choiak (B.C.2 08 January) Petetum bought a house from Tuot s. Ebe. A 8.
Pharmuthi 22 (B.C. 170 May 24). Chratianch delivered her first plea
"
7 Epiphanes Mechir (B.C.1 98 March). Petetum bought a share of the office of lector
against Tefhape. B ii 12.
in the necropolis of Siutfrom Tshenhor d. Ebe. A 2-3, Vo v 5.
Pharmuthi 24 (May 26). Tefhape's first plea. B iv 7.
(No month). Petetum bought 20 aruras land at Siut from Wepwet-eu s.
" Pharmuthi 29 (May 31). Chratianch's second plea. B v 11.
Petewepwoi. A 6, Vo v 21-vi I. Pachons 1 (June 2). Tefhape's second plea. B vi 9.
Paophi (B.C.1 85 November). Tuot s. Petetum made a deed of endowment
21 Pachons 21 (June 22). Trial before the laocritae and their judgement. Set
to his wife Chratianch. Bi 10, iv 5.'1 5.
out in B.
Paophi 25 (B.C.1 81 Nov. 30). Petetum made a deed of endowment to his
Mesore 19 (Sept. 18). Petition to Numenios the strategus by the priests
"
second wife Ewe. B ii 25-iii 1, iv 9. 10. 18, v 17, ix 19. Set out in B vi 21-
of Syene. Vo i-iii.
vii 5. ,,
12 Pharmuthi 15 (B.C.1 69 May 17). Petitions of Tefhape to Spemminis and
Paophi 25. Petetum made a gift of two-thirds of his property (as there
" Miusis. Set out in 599 and 600.
specified) to his elder son Tuot. B vii 8-g. Set out in Vo v-vii.
12(?) After Mesore 29 (B.C. 169 Sept. 28 or later). Proceedings at Psoi (?)
Paophi 25. Petetum made a gift of the remaining one-third of his property
before judges taken by Chratianch. Vo iv 5. 6. 21. 22.
(as above) to his younger son Tefhape. B iii 4, iv 5. 12, v 17. 20, vii 9,
viii 25, ix 19, x 3. Set out in A.
List of the Strategi
Paophi 25 (?). Petetum made a gift of one-eighth of a house and grounds
near Siut. Set out in 592. Theomnestos ( ? see B, note 20). Strategus of the nome ( ts) of Ne (Thebes)
6 (?) Philometor Mesore (B.C.1 75 September). Tuot receives from the archiphylacites in year 8: Bi 23, iii 7. 12. 13, iv 22, ix 16.
a certification of surplus land (81aypo:q>11B?) .v i 13. 17, and note 107. ,, II (?): Vo iv 2.
8 ,, Pharmuthi early(probably B.C.1 73 about May). Tefhape took proceedings N umenios (N umenes ?). Strategus of the nome (o f Thebes)
against his brotherTuot. Bi 22, iii 6-7, ix 16. 22. On Pharmuthi 15 Tefhape in year 8: B ii 3. 4, iii 21.
presented a·petition to Theomnestos the strategus. B iii 12-13, iv 23.
'' II : VO iii 3 . 4.
Pachons 2 (B.C.1 73 June 4). Tuot made a deed of apportionment of one
Timarchos. Strategus of the district (ql:i)o f Siut
third of their father Petetum's property to Tefhape, the deed being
in year 8: B ii 2. 3, iii 13. 14. 20, iv 23.
confirmed by Chratianch. B iii 16, v 26, vi 18, vii 5-6, ix 22, x 6. 9. 12.
,, II: B v 7.
15; 5999. Set out in B vii 5-ix 12.
,, II (?): Vo iv 4 as emo-rCXT71s.
Xl'•l INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Xlll
Socrates. Strategus of the region round Syene (pm< nt p qty Swn). from her 50 silver pieces as her dowry (s'nb), and had settled on her a certain food
in year II: Vo i 10, iii 7. allowance and an annual allowance of 5 silver pieces as his payment of her clothing
Unnamed (prob. Theomnestos)-year II (?): Vo iv 17. 17a. 21. 24. Csw pe-t bbs) per annum, and he gives her one-third of his present and future
property. He renews her title to the food and clothing allowance and gives a general
§ 3. pledge of his property in support of it. This settlement is confirmed by Tuot, his
HISTORY OF THE CASE AND TRIAL
Petetum the son of Tuot and Tshentuot, the testator as he may be called, 'being about eldest son by his first marriage. This deed is set out in B vi 22-vii 5.2
(b) On Paophi 25 (Nov. 30) Petetum made a gift of a half of his one-fourth share of a
to die' in the winter of B.C. 181/80 made a series of settlements on his children, the
house and adjacent land (which came to him from his father, Tuot son of Matrai) to
offspring of two successive marriages. What his age was we do not know, but he was
his daughter by Ewe called Teteimhotep, probably still an iQfant, as she was not
not young. The earliest record is of his purchase of a house (the 'house of Gmmys') in
married till 10 years later; but nevertheless she is described as the daughter of an
year 14 Philopator (B.C.2 08). The next shows that he was buying an office of lector
(or part thereof) in year 7 Epiphanes (B.C.1 99/8) and in the same year he purchased the endowed woman ( t srt· n sbm·t s'nb). The property, however, does not come to her
as such, but as a gift from her father, who has already given his other half of the same
10 aruras of land near Siut, which play a large part in the later litigation. Sometime before
house to her elder half-sister Tshentuot. The gift is confirmed by both her brothers
this he must have married his first wife Tshenese, by whom he had two children known
Tuot and Tefhape and the deed is set out in 592.
to us, a son Tuot and a daughter Tshentuot, named after their grandfather and grand
(c) On Paophi 25 (4 days later) Petetum made a deed of apportionment (s!Jd n ps) of
mother respectively. As Tuot was married in or about year 21 Epiphanes (B.C.1 85/4)
two-thirds of all his property to his elder son Tuot, son of his first wife Tshenese.
when he made a settlement on his wife Chratianch (the Plaintiff in the Trial), he was
It is enumerated in 18 lots, and the deed is confirmed by his second wife Ewe and her
probably born not later than about 20 years earlier, i.e. c. the last year or two of Philo
son Tefhape. It is set out in Vo v-vii.
pator (c. B.c. 205/4). That throws back the birth of Petetum to some 20 years before
(d ) On the same day Petetum made a separate deed of apportionment of the remaining
that, i.e. B.c. 230. That would make the latter c. 50 years old at least in year 25 Epiphanes,
one-third of all his property in similar terms to his son Tefhape by his second wife
and probably he was rather older.
Ewe. The same 18 lots are enumerated and it is confirmed by his elder half-brother
When he died he must have lost (o r divorced) his first wife and been married a second
Tuot. It is set out in A.
time-to one Ewe, daughter of Wepwet-eu and Taese. By her Petetum had also two
Petetum seems to have died very soon afterwards (Bi 20, ii 5), leaving Ewe his widow
children known to us, and probably no more-again a son and a daughter. The son was
and his two sons and two daughters.
named Tefhape (the Defendant in the Trial) and the daughter, Teteimhotep (Teti
At first there was no division of the paternal estate-at any rate as far as the land was
muthis). Probably both were under age at the time of their father's death. Tefhape
concerned. Tuot as the elder by many years-at least 10, perhaps more-seems to have
took no steps to recover his inheritance till six years later, in year 8 Philometor (B.c.
174/3), and his sister was married to Pegosh in Choiak year 9 Philometor, when she may keft the control of it all in his hands, and when Tefhape came to years of discretion3 he
claimed to have his share handed over to him. Quarrels arose, and eventually in the 8th
have been 16-18 years old. All this tends to show that Petetum was probably not a very
year of Philometor (B.C.1 74/3 , cf. Bi 22, ix 16) Tefhape started legal proceedings against
aged man when he died and though at least 50 may well have been 1o years older.
Both wives of Petetum were sbm·t n s'nb, i.e. heiresses, owners of property in their own his brother to enforce his claims, on the ground that Tuot had defrauded (bw'r 2_01pw)
him (B ix 21).
right with reversion of their rights to their eldest sons respectively. This reversion seems
not to have vested in the son absolutely, but only to the extent of a dn ps n sr' o (whatever At this time Siut was part of Upper Egypt, of which the well-known Hippalos, son of
Sos, was epistrategus and priest of the reigning House (Dittenberger, O.G.I. no. 103;
that was)1 and the remainder he held in trust for his brothers (cf. B ii 9-u, v 10).
Before his death Petetum made a series of deeds of apportionment to various members Bouche-Leclercq, Lagides, III 318). Theomnestos4 was strategus of the Theban nome
of his family, all dated in the same month of Paophi in year 25 of Epiphanes (B.c. 181). 2 In B iv 17-18 there is a confused statement (qy. corrupt) 251) but we may perhaps take it as being about the age of
The deeds were four in number: in which Chratianch alleges that Tefhape says that the above 20; and if so, Tefhape must have been born roughly about
deed(?) 'was made to my mother Ewe for 5 years'. There is B.c. 195/4, and was about 14 at the time of his father's death.
(a) P~ophi 25 (B:C·1 81 Nov. ~o): ~e made a deed of endowment (s!Jn s'nb) in favour of no such statement made by Tefhape in his pleadings, nor 4 The name is uncertain and is written in many forms in
his second wife Ewe and his children by her. He acknowledges that he had received does it appear in the document as produced before the demotic-vide Glossary of Foreign Names-but from the
judges, who themselves made no reference to it. It may fullest forms Theomnestos seems the most likely Greek
1 B viii 25, and the ?ivision by Petetum of his property be!':een his sons in the proportions of i and¼; and cf. Spieg. probably be neglected as a lie or as a corruption. equivalent.
P. Strassb. 1; P. Berlin 3099 I. 13 and text p. 13; and p. xx1 infra. 3 The age of majority is unknown for Egypt (Mitteis, Gdz.
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
XlV xv
under him at the time when the litigation was commenced, but was replaced by names of the two brothers, as to two-thirds for Tuot and one-third for Tefhape A
Numenios,:; In the same year 8 Timarchm; was stratcgus of Siut. Proceedings ,vere draft note of th~ lease is extant (no. 595) and is dated year 10 Thoth . ·
29
commenced by T efl1apc against Tuot (Tefhapc's petition ,vas made in Pharmuthi, In the followmg year 11, presumably as the result of renewed difficulties between the
B iii 12-14). In B .i 22 the latter is named as the only Defendant, but Chratianch, his brothe~s, Tefh~pe relates (B iv 2-4) that he leased his own share to another Greek named
wife, alleges that ,vhcn Theomnestos was replaced by N umcnios, she petitioned the Herachdes, while tw~ men na:ned Agylos (~ ou~tle_sst he le~see of the previous year) and
latter tu stop the action ( ?) \vhich was transferred to her (a ·) r-w n-y, ii 3-4). She also Apylos worked Tuots two-thirds share at his b1ddmg. This lease is extant (no. 5 7) and
9
applied to the judge to hear the case with him (B ii 4). The translation of the passage is ~ade in the usual form by less~e to lessor (s~n-k n-y). It bears date year 11 Thoth .
29
is not quite secure, nor are the grounds of her interference knmvn as her petition to It 1s an elaborate document and 1s made by Tefhape alone, leasing his one-third share
Numcnios is not extant. Tuot's action throughout is obscure. According to Tcfhape of the lands (whi~h a~e fully sreci_fied) 'which (are shared) between thee (Tefhape) and
(8 iii 15) his brother found that he could not •g o to the Registration office with him'. 'fuot thy brother - amountmg mall to 10 aruras'-'of which thou (Tefhape) ownest
Presumably he knc,v that by his confirmation of the apportionment of Petet um to an undivided third part'.
Tefhape he had no case. Chratianch in the later trial in year 1 r made allegations that . !h~ agreement between Tuot and his lessees Agylos and Apylos is not extant. But
two uncles of Tcfhape had used violence against Tuot a.nd compelled him by force to 1t 1s likely that the two lessees would come to strife over the cultivation of undivided
execute the deed of year 8 by ,vhich he (Tuot) made over to his younger brother his land: The lease wa~ made as usual before the beginning of the sowing season during the
one-third share of their father's <::statei n the same terms as the original assignment by subs1denc: of the Nile towards the end of October. At any rate, in the following Phame
Petetum to Tefhape of the year 25 of Epiphanes. The case was heard by Theomnestos noth (Apnl 170) Tefhape makes a petition to Spemminis (no. 598), prophet of Thoth
and Timarchos (B iii 13-14) according to Tefhape. Chratianch's account is somewhat and royal emcnCXT1lcSo, mplaining of Tuot and asking for a division of the lands. What
different (B ii 2-4). the answer was w~ do not know: ~ut Chr~tianch (in the name of her husband Tuot)
At the second trial in year II, Tefhape (B iii 2) denied the allegations of Chratianch, coun~ered by star_tmg legal proceedmgs agamst Tefhape and claiming the whole of the
and the judges ignored them. The natural inference is that Tuot was compelled to make la~d m the followmg month-the date of her first plea being Pharmuthi 22 (May 17o)
the deed of the year 8, but hy the Court itself, and not hy any extraneous compulsion. with_t he result of t~e ~hole case being tried out on Pachons 21 (B.C.1 70 June 22), the
The usual method, judging from similar instances6 was in all civil suits relating to official report of which 1s set out in B (B .M. 1o 591).
,
property, for the strategus to attempt to arbitrate between the parties and, only if that . ~he 10 aruras of land, the s~bject of the dispute, form the seventh item of the property
failed, they sent the case to the laocritae, and compelled the parties to submit to their d1v1?ed by Petetum between his two sons (c f. A 4-5; B vii 22; Vo v 18) and are described
decision by the execution of a deed embodying tlwir judgement; cf. the demotic as high land (sharaqi, artificially irrigated arable) South of Siut in the divine endowment
?f.
instances in P. Berl. 3u3; Spieg. P. Eleph. no. 12; Gradenwitz Preisigke und Spiegel Wepw_oi,f orming the half of an estate of 20 aruras which were bought by Petetum
berg, Erbstreit, &c. 1912 (P. dem. Wiss. Ges. no 16). There is no evidence that the first Jomtly with Tuot son of Matrai7 in year 7 of Epiphanes (B.c. 199-8) from two goose
proceedings in the year 8 went beyond the two strategi who found that Tefhape's title keepers (x11vol3001<0T1h)e. land must have been divided between Petetum and Tuot
was detr on the documents (B vi 2. 3). son of Matrai, as we hear nothing more of the 10 aruras belonging to the latter.
It \.vould appear then that the proceedings commenced by Tcfhape in Pharmuthi of Chratianch's claim to the ownership of the entire 10 aruras was based on ( 1) an endow
v., car 8 resulted in the deed of .y ear 8 dated Pachons 2 and confirmed bv Chratianch, which m~nt deed (not extant) made by Petetum to his first wife Tshenese, which no doubt con
~
she would hardly have done unless by order uf a judicial authority, whether a strategus tamed a pledge of this land as security for the latter's dowry (B i 16, ix 15), and (2) on
_or a court of laocritae. By thi8-deed Tefhapc ,:vas restored to his rights, and peace was the de~d of en~owment made to her (Chratianch) by Tuot her husband in the 21st year
made for a time. In the following year 9 the two brothers cultivated their land together Paoph1 of Ep1phanes (B.c. 185), by which, as she alleges, Tuot pledged to her the
10
(B iv 1). In the year 10 the lands, apparently still undivided, were leased out to one a~uras as security for her endowment deed and put her in possession of them (B ii
Agylos (ax_ii\evss?o)n of Lysimachos, a Greek 1n,revs. The lease was made in the joint 4-6, 1v 19-20) at Petetum's death, Petetum having confirmed the endowment deed· and
she claims the land in the name of her son by Tuot, Petewepwoi (B ii 9-10, v 1~), in
5 Numenios was possibly the ambassador sent to Rome by 6 Except the remark of Chratianch in ii 4 'I applied (lit.
the joint Kings Ptolemy Philometor and his brother a few wrote, or sent) to you (plur. i.e. the judges she is then
7
years later (in B.C. 168 autumn-year 13-14 Philometer. addressing), to hear my plea together with him' (i.e. the ,' ThiswasthenameofPetetum'sownfather,butprobably and would probably have inherited the whole estate of
Polybius xxx. ii). In Vo iii 3-4 he is given the title of strategus Numenios). it was _another T. son of M. who was the co-purchaser, 20 aruras.
Archisomatophylax in year 11 Philometor. otherwise Petetum would have described him as 'my father'
xvi INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION xvn
whom, presumably, the reversion of them was vested. The endowment deed is not extant; and then no more is heard of him. If he had been a 1<vp1oso, ne would have expected
but, in the main, Chratianch's assertions are probably correct, as they are not denied by him to be named as such, either at the opening of the trial or in the judgement, and some
Tefhape except as to Petetum's alleged confirmation, which she quotes in Bi 11. This reason would be given for his replacing Tuot. He makes the plea Cr p b,rw) of
is denied by Tefhape (B iv 5), reaffirmed by Chratianch (B iv 15-16), and again denied Chratianch: but is hardly an advocate, for his appearance is so brief and confined to one
by Tefhape (B v 28), but the point was ignored eventually by the judges. or two special points; still he may have drawn up Chratianch's pleadings for her and
Now we come to the trial which was held at Siut before the laocritae on Pachons 21 advised her. If so, Diodorus' statement about the absence of advocates in earlier times
in year II of Philometor (B.c. 170 June 22). We have no account of the preliminary maybe wrong for the Ptolemaic period (Diod. lib. I c. 76, and cf.P.Amh. nno. 33; Mitteis,
proceedings except the petition by Tefhape to Spemminis the epistates (no. 598, dated Gdz. p. 18).
Phamenoth 21); but as Tefhape is the Defendant in the Trial, Chratianch, as the Plain To return to Chratianch and her first plea (B i 7-12). It is commendably brief. She
tiff, must have made some preliminary statement, now lost, to induce the strategus or alleges the deed of endo,vmcnt made to her by her husband in year 21 of Epiphanes,
cpistates to remit her case to the Court uf laocritac. There the procedure \Vas by the confinncd by Petet um, and the deed of apportiomnent made by Petetum to the Def en
ddivcry of the parties of a written statement of daim and a defence respectively, and dant Tefhape in year 25 of a one-third share of his (Petetum's) property, which he could
a further reply on each side. Chratianch 's claim is dated year 11 Pharmuthi 22 (B ii not do as he had already assigned it to his first wife Tshcncsc and her son Tuotl the
11--12); Tefhapc's reply was delivered on the 24th, tv1-'0 days later (B iv 7); Chratianch's Plaintiff's husband. She quotes a law of the year 21 upholding the rights of the children
rejuinder on the 29th, five days later (B v IT); and Tefhape 's second rep! y on Pach ons r by a first wife in such a case as against the issue of a subsequent marriage. She proceeds
(B vi 9).8 to tell her story of what took place in the year 8 of Philomctor, and how the deed of that
It is rather remarkable that the technical terms for these pleadings is b,rw 'voice', year bet\veen Tuot and Tcfhape was executed by the former under duress. She then
though it is stated that written pleadings in litigation go back to the Old Kingdom alleges that the ro aruras of land, part of the property divided by Petetum between his
(Breasted, Hist. Eg. p. 81); but in the case of Mes there seem to have been no pleadings two sons in year 25 of Epiphanes, really belonged to her and that Tcfhape has no right
in writing drawn up for the trial (A. H. Gardiner, Inscriptiono f Mes 1905). The prepara in it whatever.
tion of the suit by petition to the Viceroy (in Ptolemaic times to the strategus) is the same Tefhape's defence is longer. He begins by tacitly admitting Chratianch's endowment
as in later times. Criminal proceedings were probably always viva voce. deed of year 21 Epiphanes, though at the end of his plea (B iv 4-6) he denies that it was
It is more remarkable that the action is brought by Chratianch in her own name in confirmed by Peteturn. He next quotes her allegati011( B i 13-21) that Pctetum made
the lifetime of her husband and without a 1<vpios( see below as to Ouertes). There is the apportionment deed giving one-third to Tdhapc in year 25 without having any
not a word in the whole trial as to whether her husband is alive, or dead, or as to where pov~·ert o do so and her citation of the law, and formally denies them. He next puts for
he is, or what he is doing. If he had been absent on military service, or government ward the endowment deed of the same year made hy Petctum to his (the Defendant's)
business, one would have expected it to be mentioned (c f. Wenger, Stellvertretung -im mother Ewe and confirmed by Tuot, and he offers to produce it as well as the apportion
Rechte der Papyri, 1906, p. 127 seq.)9 there is no mention of him, except as to his history ment deed made to him by his father and also confirmed by Tuot. Further, he quotes
;
in the times preceding the trial by either Tefhape or the judges. He is not called as her statement (Bi 22-ii 2) as to what happened in year 8 Philometor and denies it, and
a witness and his existence is ignored-and yet we know he was alive. Tefhape states of gives an alternative version of his mvn (B iii n-19). Then he quotes her statements
Chratianch that she appears 'in the name of' her husband (B iii 2, v 24, and cf. iv 10, respecting the 10 aruras (in B ii 4-8) and denies them, alleging his own ownership of
v 19.) Was he.perhaps non compos? But if so, it is strange that it should not have been them (B iii 2 3-iv I), and telling his own story of the period of joint ownership hctween
stated. In B vi 1r the judges ask Chratianch : ' '' Is there a man who makes thy plea C!Jrw?)' ' himself and Tuot in the years 9 to 11 up to the date of the trial.
She said: "Ouertes is he who makes my plea; my plea is his plea. If he is justified, I am Chratianch in her second plea (B iv 7-v II) quote!=!T efhapc's statements about
justified; if he is false> 1 am false". They examined Oucrtes who makes the plea of Petetum's endowment deed to his second wife Ewe and says that they afford him no
Chratianch. He said: "There is a diagraphe,& c."', and proceeded to state certain facts justification. She reaffirms Petetum's confirmation of her husband Tuot's endowment
deed to herself and her story as to the compulsion put on the latter by Ewe's brothers.
8 This is quite in accordance with what Diodorus says of absence could have the litigation stopped. His views are
the procedure in earlier times, lib. I c. 75. based on suits before the chrematistae: and it is possible, She denies Tefhape's statement as to his joint work on the land with Tuot in the years 9
9 Kiessling (Arch. vm 240) thinks that a wife could not but hardly likely, that different rules may have prevailed in
and 10. She states emphatically that the land is hers (B v 10) 'as belonging to Pete
begin a lawsuit without her husband, unless he were absent the native courts of laocritae.
on royal duty or service; and if subjected to a suit in his wepwoi my eldest son and his brothers. It is a pledge for my endowment deed'.
C
xvm INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION XlX
Tefhape replies with a denial of various statements made by Chratianch. He reasserts 'Zurn ptolemaischen Gerichtsverfahren', 1907). More is known about the chrema
the validity of Petetum's deed to Ewe, as confirmed by Tuot. He ends by invoking the tistae, but it is unreasonable to suppose that what is known about the Greek Courts is
'Six Laws' (or Sixth Law?). applicable to the native ones. Waszynski, Arch.fur Papyrusforschung, v (1913), discussed
That closes the pleadings, which are then read out by the 'scribe of the judges', in the latter in relation to the Kotvov 6tKacrTr,p1ov (?), a court to which cases are referred by
their presence, tthcy standing bet,veen the two parties'. The judges proceed to intcrrn the Strategus in two papyri from Magdola (B.C.H. XXVI 125 = Magd. 21 and xxvn
gate Chratianch, and the episode of Ouertes \vho makes her plea' (described above) 174 = Magd. 23) and another also from Magdola (Mel. Nicole, 282, Geneva 1905) in
takes place. He states that the land had been increased in size by I k arnras, whicb v,ras which a case is referred to the laocritae. The latter instance is, without much doubt,
officiaHy certified; and ends by saying 'There is no closure of the mouth' (l. 16), which a purely civil claim (though the facts involve also a possible criminal charge which was
seems to he a formula (cf. 1. 20) amounting to 'I have no further \\'itnesscs to call'. dealt with by the police authorities), but we have no details; and our new documents do
Tefhape, being questioned in turn, gives an explanation of the diagraphe, the purport of not throw any light on any of the several disputed questions that have been raised in
which is rather obscure. connexion with the native Courts, viz. their relation (if any) to the Courts of the New
The judges then call for the production of documents, viz. (a) the deed of endowment Kingdom; to the KotvooiKtov (?) or to their possible jurisdiction in criminal cases, though
made to Ewe by Petetum. This is produced and a copy of it set out (B vi 21-vii 5). as to this last the general opinion seems to be against it.
The judges examine Chratianch about it (we should have expected Ewe to be called), The Court in the present instance consisted of three priests and an Eisagogeus, who,
and 'she had not registered it'. Tefhape next produced (b) the deed of apportionment however, was not one of the judges, nor apparently an assessor. As a transliteration of
made to him by his brother Tuot in the year 8; and this is set out (B vii 5-ix 12) with its this Greek word is used in the demotic text, he must have been an official introduced
confirmation by Chratianch herself. into the native Courts from the Greek Courts, where he plays an important part; and
This is immediately followed by the judgement of the Court. The judges begin by his functions were the collection of the pleas and preparing the case for the use of the
a brief summary of the chief points raised by the pleadings (ix 13-x 4): they then refer judges, and eventually reading out the documents when the judges sat; and it is his
to the two deeds produced by Tefhape, and proceed to quote the law of the year 21 in bailiff who is directed (Bx 14) to carry out the decree of the Court. Note that not only
a somewhat different form to that given by Chratianch in her first plea (Bi 17-20). She his title, but also his name is Greek. The judges, being priests, are of course Egyptian;
omitted the important reservation that, if the property was conveyed to the second wife they are priests of the chief god Wepwoi (Ophois) of Siut, where the Court sat.
'without the woman' (i.e. the first wife) 'or her eldest son having assented to the deed In Vo iii 1-2 it is stated that in the year 11 of Philometor (the year of the Trial) the
Cr
in question', then the conveyance ,;i,rouldh e invalid. In the present case, however, the priests of Anh our ( Onuris) do justice wpy) at Psoi (Ptolemais). Anh our was the local
dc~d in question had been confirmed by Tuot (B vii 2 -4); and the later deed of apportion god of This, which is only about 12 miles south of Psoi; and since the latter, being a Greek
ment of the year 8 was not only made by Tuot in favour of Tefhape, hut also confirmed town founded by Ptolemy Soter, had probably no native temple of its own, the priests
by Chratianch. The judges accordingly (Bx r3) decreed that Tdhapc should be forth of Anhour at This presumably were called upon to act as judges when required. There
\Vith put in possession of a]l the property daimt'd by him as set out in the deed of the year is also an instance in P. Berl. 3u3, 1. 4, where the priests (of Amon doubtless) do
8, and the document is signed by the scribe of the judges and by the three judges them justice in Thebes (29 Euerg. II). If this is so, it is an argument in favour of the
selves 'who have recorded the judgement'. laocritae being always priests, whereas we know that the chrematistae were laymen
(Mitteis, u.s. 4).
§ 4· LEGAL NOTES In the present case the parties were all necropolis officials and holders of temple lands
and liturgies, and all Egyptian natives; and hence their proceedings have no bearing on
1. The Court of Laocritae. iii. The Proceedings.
the exceptions made in the decrees of 52 Euergetes II (P. Tebt. I 5, 11.2 07-20) as to
ii. Previous Records. iv. The Laws.
whether the latter are a mere restatement of existing law, or modifications of it.
v. Miscellaneous: (a) rights of inheritance; (b) witnesses; (c) trial and
retrial ; (d ) oaths ; (e ) some technical terms : tr, wsb, sb,mt· n s<nb.
ii. Previous Records
i. The Court of Laocritae The procedure of the native Courts has been little known hitherto since the docu
On the subject of the Court of laocritae little has been hitherto known or written ments are so few. The principal ones may be mentioned here.
(Mitteis, Gdz. p. 3; Bouche-Leclercq, Lagides, IV 206 seq.; P. M. Meyer, Klio, vu 289 (a) Revillout's 'un proces plaide devant les laocrites sous le regne de Ptolemee Soter'
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
XX XXI
(Trans. S.B.A. vr 449) does not bear out its title, but it is a document connected with perhaps an error for 'the 6th law'-in B vi 8 but the reference is too general to allow of
an impending action before them. certainty. Cf note 103 there.
(b) P. Brusselsn o. 4 (e d. Spiegelberg) is very fragmentary and obscure, but seems to be The same Vo iii at 1. 16 has a reference to the 8th tablet 'of the law of Egypt, which
part of a petition to some one in authority in Thebes (strategus or epistates probably) is called the House of Delay', which would seem to bear on a power of holding up a
complaining of wrongs done, but the matter might or might not eventually come before pending action while a remedy is being sought through another channel.
the laocritae. It is commented on in Spieg. P. Hauswaldt, p. 25*, by J. Partsch.
v. Miscellaneous
(c) The papyrus P. dem. Wiss. Ges. Strassb. no. 16, published by Gradenwitz, Preisigke
and Spiegelberg in Ein Erbstreit aus dem ptolemaischenA egypten, 1912, is a deed of (a) Rights of inheritance. I do not propose to attempt here any discussion of the general
agreement (crvY)(wp17cnes)n tered into by the parties to recent proceedings before officials question of the relative powers as between parents and children over property as
in the suite of the strategus, regarding a dispute about land, and the losing parties exhibited in the deeds of the year 25 of Epiphanes made by Petetum in view of his
renounce their claim to the winning ones under a penalty, if they should recommence approaching death, or property conveyed to his wife and the children by a husband under
the litigation. The case did not come before the laocritae; indeed as the land in question a marriage settlement. Questions of a very similar nature to those in the present instance
was Y'lll 30:cr1i\1KitT Jc, ould not have done so, since such land is withdrawn from them were discussed in the celebrated Petition of Dionysia by the editors of P. Oxy. no. 237
under the provisions of P. Tebt. I 5, 1. 210, which in that respect probably held good (Roman). The 1<0:TOXoTf Jt he children, i.e. their reversionary interest, how far absolute
17 years earlier, the agreement dated 35 Euerg. II. and how far contingent, is clearly set out by Mitteis, Gdz., pp. 231-4, 241-6, in the
present uncertain state of our knowledge; and is further dealt with by H. Kreller,
iii. The Proceedings
Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen,1 919, pp. 63 seq., 178 seq., 188 seq.; Arangio-Ruiz,
It is remarkable that the Trial is based -on definite pleadings. It might have been Personee famiglia nel diritto dei papiri, 1930, cap. 3.
supposed that the petitions on either side addressed to the strategus or epistates would be There is a question, moreover, as to how far a father was obliged by law-or merely
taken as sufficient, and produced at the Trial; but not so; we have definite statements of by custom-to divide his property among his sons in fixed proportions. In the present
fact and argument of claims, which are prepared for presentation to the judges. They case Tuot receives two-thirds and Tefhape one-third of the property. Gradenwitz,
are two on each side and made by the Plaintiff and Defendant alternately.10 They are Erbstreit, 1912, p. 3, stated it as a definite rule that the eldest son took two-thirds; and
brw
called 'voice', as a technical term hitherto unknown; and were produced with com Mitteis, Gdz. p. 234, quotes other instances; cf. Kreller, op. cit. 149 seq., who does not
mendable rapidity, the first Plaintiff's claim being dated Pharmuthi 22 (May 24) and the admit that he had an indefeasible right to it. In demotic documents are found references
last Defendant's reply on Pachons 1 (June 2), i.e. within ten days, and the judges sat to to an elder son taking a larger share, e.g. P. Berlin 3099 (ed. Spiegelberg, p. 13) and
hear the case on Pachons 21, twenty days later. 3II8 (p. 14), and B ix 4 here, and the P. dem. Wiss. Ges. Strassb. no. 16 (Erbstreit,u .s.),
No doubt all cases were not so speedy and essoins were not unknown. Cf. Vo iv 21-3. but the evidence so far hardly bears out Gradenwitz's statement.
The appearance of Chratianch as a party without her husband, though he was alive, (b) Witnesses. The deed of apportionment made by Petetum to Tefhape (A) has
or a Kvp1osi, s discussed above, pp. xvi-xvii. sixteen witnesses. The corresponding one to Tuot and the apportionment deed of year 8,
being only abbreviated copies, omit the witnesses. The gift of a house to Teteimhotep
iv. The Laws
(592) has only ten; her marriage settlement (593) has sixteen and so has her husband's
There are references to several 'laws'. The 'law of the year 21' (o f Epiphanes? cf.
acknowledgement of receipt of her dowry (594). The farming lease of the ten aruras of
B, note 16). This is a statement of the law of inheritance in the case of a man having
land (597) has sixteen witnesses.
two successive wives and leaving issue by each. It is first set out by Chratianch Bi 17-
(c) Appeal. The case of the ownership of the land in dispute in the trial in B seems
20, repeated by Tefhape B ii 20, and set out by the judges in a modified form in B. x 7.
to have been tried out before the strategus in the year 8 ; and seems, without much
Another law referred to is the 6th law in Vo iii 18, from which a citation is made, viz.:
doubt, to have resulted in an agreement between the parties executed in that year. Yet
'He who withdraws himself (st n>m-f)h e is stopped(?) until the judgement is registered'.
the question was raised again in year 11 and re-tried, with a similar judicial decision, by
See note 8 in the above passage. There is also a reference to the '6 laws'-which is
the laocritae. And the latest documents (598-600) show that attempts were being made by
10 Cf. Diod. Sic. lib. I c. lxxv. 6-7 for similar proceeding in reference to the inscription of Rekhmara hardly bears out the losing party to recommence proceedings. This seems to prove that there was no real
the pre-Ptolemaic days; and for the procedure in the x1xth all his contention. It is only the petition (spr·t) that R. says
system of appeal from one Court to a higher Court and a final decision in Egypt in the
dyn. see A. H. Gardiner, Inscriptiono f Mes 1905, p. 3. This must be in writing.