THE PREFECT OF EGYPT

FROM AUGUSTUS TO DIOCLETIAN

BY

OSCAR WILLIAM REINMUTH

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CLASSICS
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA

KLIO, BEIHEFT XXXIV;

NEUE FOLGE, HEFT 21

19 5 5

DIETERICH’SCHE VERLAGSBUCHHANDLUNG · LEIPZIG

ΤΟΜΕΑΣ ΚΛΑΣΙΚΩΝ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ

 Alle R echte Vorbehalten

TO PROFESSOR

ALLAN CHESTER JOHNSON

i
Drack von C. Schulze A Co., G. m. b. H., Gräfenh.iinichen

ΤΟΜΕΑΣ ΚΛΑΣΙΚΩΝ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ

 FO REW O RD

The “Prefect of Egypt” is primarily a study in Roman provincial

administration. It is the aim of this monograph to show how the
prefect related himself to the numerous highly organized functions
of government which Rome, in large part, took over with little
change from its Ptolemaic predecessors, to point out the nature
of his administration, and to indicate his relation to the emperor
and the empire in the period from Augustus to Diocletian.
The available source material is now sufficiently extensive to
justify a study of the prefect. The discovery of additional docu­
ments may modify, but it cannot essentially change the outUnes
of his functions as they appear in the texts now available. After
the treatments of the epistrategus and of the strategus which have
appeared, a study of the prefect is in order. Such a study is of
peculiar interest, first because of the detailed picture which can
be drawn of this provincial administrator, and secondly because
it was in Egypt that the governor first appears as a glorified per­
sonal agent of the emperor instead of the independent executive
officer under the general supervision of the senate who had formerly
been placed at the head of a province.
The narrow confines of this study make it impossible to include
the detailed system of proof which led to the formulation of every
conclusion, and hence in many instances general statements appear
which, however, are based upon a careful study of the passages
which bear upon the given point and which are cited in the notes.
Much of M^hat is here presented is not new; but all of the material
which is now available upon the prefect of Egypt is for the first
time brought together in this work. Whenever studies of phases
of the prefect’s administration were available, I have freely entered
upon the labors of others, always of course with due acknowledge­
ment. A certain amount of repetition will be found since passages
pertinent to more than one phase of the prefect’s work, are referred
to under each of the appropriate sections. Instead of cross references
VI Foreword F

to a previous page, the original reference has been repeated for

convenience, especially if it is short. The number in parentheses
following the reference to a papyrus, is the year A. D. in which
the document is to be dated. A year before Christ is specifically
cited B. C.
No one working in the field of papyrology can be unaware of
the number and extent of Professor W ile k e n ’s contribution to
every division of study in that field. I owe more to Ms studies TA BLE OF C O N TENTS
than would appear even from the numerous references to his works.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Professor A. C. J o h n so n ,
Professor of Ancient History at Princeton Umversity, who gave
i I
F o r e w o r d ......................................................................................................
List of A b b r e v ia tio n s..............................................................................X — X IV
V

the initial suggestion for this study, and who throughout the years
CHAPTER I
of its preparation has most freely given me both help and encourage­
Appointm ent, Position, and P o w e r s ........................................................... 1
ment. Professor C. H. O ld fath er, Professor of Ancient History
1. A p p o in tm e n t............................................................................................... 1
at the University of Nebraska, has been kind enough to read the 2. P osition in E g y p t .................................................................................. 2
manuscript and has given me advice on many points, for which 3. Position in the E m p i r e ......................................................................... 4
I wish to thank him again publicly. I should like to express 4. Filling of a V a c a n c y ............................................................................. 7
my deep appreciation, too, to Professor L eh m an n -H au p t and 5. R elation to Other Officials Sent out from R o m e ..................... 8
6. Titles and A p p e lla t iv e s ......................................................................... 9
to the publishers for their kindness in accepting the study for
publication in this series, and for their willingness to publish C HAPTER II
it as it was written in the English language. I am indebted The Officials R esponsible to the P r e f e c t ................................................ 11
also to my wife for unstinted assistance in the preparation of the 1. Officials Appointed b y the P r e f e c t .................................................... 11
manuscript for the press. 2. Civic Personnel ...................................................................................... 12
While I have exercised the greatest care in checking the re­ 3. Military S t a f f ........................................................................................... 13
ferences, I have been handicapped in making the final draft by C HAPTER III
not having access to the extensive and scattered literature. It The Prefect and the L i t u r g ie s .................................................................... 15
has been necessary to depend upon visits to larger libraries during 1. Exem ption from L itu r g ie s.................................................................. 18
short periods snatched from routine labors, which is always un­
satisfactory. C HAPTER IV
A dm inistrative F u n c t i o n s ............................................................................. 24
L in co ln , N eb ra sk a , July 2, 1934 1. F i n a n c e ......................................................................................................... 26
2. Public Lands ........................................................................................... 26
3. C o lo n iz a t io n ............................................................................................... 27
4. Currency .................................................................................................... 27
6. Boundaries ............................................................................................... 28
6. Temples and Temple P r o p e r ty ........................................................... 28
7. Em igration ................................................................................................ 33
8. Foundations and B e n e fa c tio n s ........................................................... 33
9. W eights and M e a s u r e s ......................................................................... 34
10. Natural R e s o u r c e s .................................................................................. 34
11. Provisioning of A lexan d ria.................................................................... 34
12. A lex a n d ria n s................................................................................................ 35
13. J e w s ............................................................................................................. 36
14. Leasing of T a x e s ...................................................................................... 38
15. Leasing of Public L a n d s ......................................................................... 39
16. Transportation of Grain .................................................................... 39
v ili Table oI Contents Table of Contents IX

C HAPTER V C HAPTER X I
The System of R e c o r d s .................................................................................. 41 Civil J u r i s d i c t i o n ..................................................................................................... 106
1. Officials in Charge of the R e c o r d s .................................................. 41 1. Inheritance .......................................................................................... 106
2. Kinds of D o c u m e n t s ............................................................................. 42 2. M anum ission of S l a v e s .............................................................................. 108
3. P a tria P o te s ta s ................................................................................................ 108
CHAPTER VI 4. Restitutio in I n te g r u m ...................................................................................109
The E d i c t s ............................................................................................................. 45 5. Longi Tem poris P r a e s c r ip tio ..................................................................... 109
1. N am es Applied to the E d i c t s ........................................................... 45 6. lu s T rium L ib e r o r u m ................................................................................... 109
2. Form and L a n g u a g e ............................................................................. 45 7. G u a r d i a n s ..........................................................................................................HO
3. Subject M a t t e r ........................................................................................... 46 8. S e c u r it y .............................................................................................................. H I
4. The Provincial E d i c t ................................................................................ 46 9. D e b t s ...................................................................................................................H I
5. P u b l i c a t i o n ................................................................................................ 50 10. S t a t u s .................................................................................................................. 114
6. Period of V a l i d i t y .................................................................................. 52
C HAPTER X II
C HAPTER V II
C rim inal J u r i s d i c t i o n ............................................................................................ H 5
The R elation of the Prefect to the E m peror......................................... 54 1. P en alties ..........................................................................................................H 6
1. Appeals to the E m peror......................................................................... 56
2. Im perial R e s c r i p t s .................................................................................. 57 CHAPTER X III
Military F u n ctio n s..................................................................................................... H 9
C H A PTER V III
1. Military Forces in E g y p t ..........................................................................H 9
The R ev en u es......................................................................................................... 59 2. Military Expeditions Madeb y the P r e f e c t s ........................................119
1. Assessm ent of T a x e s ................................................................................ 59
3. The Military Epicrisis .............................................................................. 123
2. Tax S c h e d u le s ........................................................................................... 63
4. Privileges of Veterans .............................................................................. 124
3. Collection of T a x e s .................................................................................. 63 5. The M aintenance of the Peace ............................................................ 125
4. The A u d i t .................................................................................................... 65
C o n c lu s io n .................................................................................................................. 121
5. A batem ents and E x em p tion s................................................................ 65
Appendix I. Prefects of E g y p t.......................................................................... 131
6. The Records forming the Basis of the Tax Assessments . . 66
Appendix II. Edicts of P r e fe c t s ....................................................................... 140
a) The Census and the Principle of Origo ................................ 66
b) Declarations of B i r t h ......................................................................... 71 Indices ....................................................................................................................... 144
c) Epicrisis ............................................................................................... 72
d) R egistration of P r o p e r t y ................................................................ 75
e) R egistration of Unw atered and U ncultivatable Land . . 77
f) Episcepsis ............................................................................................ 78
7. Assessm ents for the Visits of the Prefects and Other Officials 78
8. R equisitions for the M ilitary F o r c e s .............................................. 80
9. Peculation and E x t o r t i o n .................................................................... 81

C HAPTER IX
The Adm inistration of J u s t i c e .................................................................... 85
1. Letters and Petitions sent to the P r e f e c t ..................................... 85
2. Form and Language of the P e t i t i o n .............................................. 86
3. Kinds of P e t i t i o n s .................................................................................. 87
4. The Different Forms of the S u b sc rip tio ......................................... 89
5. The P etition as a Means of Initiating a Trial ....................... 94
6. The S u m m o n s ........................................................................................... 94

CH A PTER X
The C o n v e n t u s .................................................................................................... 98
1. Place and Time of the C o n v e n t u s ........................................................ 100
2. J u d g e s ...............................................................................................................102
3. Preliminary I n v e s t ig a t io n ..........................................................................103
4. Court P r o c e d u r e ............................................................................................ 104

L IS T OF A B B R E V IA T IO N S
A bbott and Johnson, M u nicipal A dm inistration = F . F . A bbott and
A. C. Johnson, M u nicipal A dm inistration in the Rom an Em pire,
Princeton, 1926.
Abh. d. p r . A h. = Abhandlungen der preußischen Akademie der W issen­
schaften.
Abh. sächs. Oes. W iss. = Abhandlungen der sächsischen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften.
P . Achm im = Paul Collart, Les Papyrus grecs d’Achmîm à la Bibliothèque
N ationale de Paris. B ulletin de l'Institu t français d'archéologie orien­
tale du Caire, 31 (1930), 33— 111.
P . Am h. = B . P. Grenfell and A. S. H unt, The Amherst P a p y ri. Part II.
London, 1901.
Ann. Épigr. = L'Année épigraphique, published in R evue Archéologique.
A nn. Serv. = Annales du Service des A ntiquités de l'Égypte.
Arch. = Archiv fü r Papyrusforschung.
P . B ad. = Fr. Bilabel, Veröffentlichungen aus den badischen P a p yru s­
sammlungen. Griechische P a p y ri. Heidelberg, 1924.
P . B as. = E . Rabel, Papyrusurkunden der öffentlichen B ibliothek der
U niversität zu Basel, I, Urkunden in griechischer Sprache. Abhand­
lungen der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, N . F . 16 (1917),
Nr. 3. Berlin.
Bell, Jews and Christians = H. I. Bell, Jew s and Christians in E gypt,
Oxford, 1924.
Bell, Juden und Griechen = H . I. Bell, Juden und Griechen im römischen
Alexandria. Beihefte zum alten Orient, H eft 9. Leipzig, 1926.
A. Berger, D ie Strafklauseln in den P apyrusurkunden. Leipzig und Berlin,
1911.
Ber. Oes. W iss. L eipz. = Berichte der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Leipzig.
P . Berl. Leihgabe = Ture Kalen, Berliner Leihgabe griechischer Papyri I,
U ppsala Universitets A rsskrift, Filosofi Spräkvetenskap och historiska
Vetenskapen. Uppsala, 1933.
P . Berl. F risk II = Hjalm ar Frisk, Bankakten aus dem Faijüm nebst
anderen Berliner Papyri. Göteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps-och Vitterhets-
Samhälles H andlingar. Femte Följden. Ser. A. Band 2. N o. 2. Göte­
borg, 1931.
BG U = Ägyptische Urkunden aus den königlichen M useen zu Berlin·.
Griechische Urkunden, vols. I —V II. Berlin, 1895— 1926.
Boak, P . M ich. II = A. E . R . Boak, U niversity of M ichigan Studies,
P a p y ri from Tebtunis, Part. I, vol. 28, 1933.
P . Bouriant = P. Collart, Les P ap yru s Bouriant. Paris, 1926.
B P h W = Berliner philologische Wochenschrift.
List OÎ Abbreviations XI
Bruns, Fontes’’ = C. Bruns, Fontes Iu ris Rom ani A n tiqu i. 7 th edition.
Tübingen. 1919. .
ß u ll. de l'In st.fra n ç. = Bulletin de l'In stitu t français d'Archéologie orientale
du Caire.
Bull 1st. D ir. Rom. = Bulletino del Istitu to d i diritto romano.
Bull. Soc. Arch. = B ulletin de la Société Royale d'Archéologie d'Alexandrie.
Cagnat, lO R R = R . Cagnat, J . Toutain, P. Jouguet, Inscriptiones Graecae
ad Res Rom anas Pertinentes, vol. I. Paris, 1911.
Cantarelli, P refetti = L. Cantarelli, La Serie dei P refetti di E gitto, A tti
della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, 12 (1906), 48 129. Rom e.
p . Cattaoui = B. P . Grenfell, A. S. H u nt, P . M. Meyer, Archiv fü r P a p y ru s­
forschung, 3 (1906), 55ff.
CIO, Corpus Inscriptionum Oraecarum. Berlin, 1828 1877.
C IL , Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum . Berlin 1862.
CI. P h il. = Classical Philology.
P . Cornell = W . L. W esterm ann and C. J . Kraemer Jr., Greek P a p y ri
in the L ibrary of Cornell U niversity. N ew York, 1926.
CPH erm . = C. W essely, Corpus Papyrorum Herm opolitanorum . Studien
zur Palaeographie und P apyruskunde, vol. V. Leipzig, 1905.
(jP B . — C. W essely, Corpus P apyrorum R aineri. V ienna 1895.
CR Inscr. = Comptes rendus de l'Académie des In scriptions et Belles-
lettres.
Dig. = Digesta corporis civilis.
D itt. OGIS = W . Dittenberger, O rientis Oraeci Inscriptiones Selectae,
vol. II. Leipzig 1905.
Eger, Orundbuchwesen = O. Eger, Zum ägyptischen Orundbuchswesen in
römischer Zeit. Leipzig, 1909.
Eph. E pigr. = Ephemeris Epigraphica, Corporis Inscriptionum Latinarum
Supplementum. Berlin, 1872.
Ét. de P a p . = Études de Papyrologie. Caire.
P . F a y . = B. P. Grenfell, A. S. H unt, D . G. H ogarth, F ayû m Towns
and their P a p y ri. London 1900.
Festschrift fü r Hirschfeld = Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds sechzigstem
Geburtstage. Berlin, 1903.
P . Gen. = J. N icole, Les P a p yru s de Genève. Geneva, 1896.
Girard, Textes^ = F . Girard, Textes de D roit Rom ain. 4 th edition. Paris,
1913.
P . Giss. = E. Kornemann, P. M. Meyer, O. Eger, Griechische P a p y ri
im M useum des Oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins zu Gießen, Band I.
Leipzig, 1910— 12.
P . Giss. Bibi. — H ans Kling, Schriften der hessischen Hochschulen. U n i­
versität Gießen, H eft 4, 1924.
P . Goodap. = E. J. Goodspeed, The Decennial Publications of the
U niversity of Chicago, vol. V. Chicago, 1904.
P . Oraux = Bulletin de l'Institut français d'Archéologie orientale du Caire,
21 (1923) 189— 214.
P . Grenf. 1 = B. P. Grenfell, A n A lexan drian Erotic Fragment and other
Greek and L a tin P a p yri. Oxford, 1896.
P- Grenf. 2 = B. P. Grenfell, A. S. H unt, N ew Classical Fragments and
other Greek and L a tin P a p yri. Oxford 1897.
P - Oron. = H . G. R oos, Papyri Groninganae, Griechische Papyri der
U niversitätsbibliothek zu Groningen, nebst zwei Papyri der U n i­
X II List of Abbreviations
versitätsbibliothek zu Am sterdam. Verkandelingen der K on in klijke
Akadem ie van Wetenschappen te Am sterdam , Afdeeling Letterkunde,
N ieuw e Reeks, deel 32 (1933), no. 4. Am sterdam.
P . Hamb. = P. M. Meyer, Griechische P apyrusurkunden der Hamburger
Stadtbibliothek. Leipzig 1911— 24.
Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten = Ο. Hirschfeld, D ie Kaiserlichen Ver­
waltung sbeamten bis au f D iokletian. 2n d edition. Berlin, 1905.
Hornickel, Ehren und Rangpredikate = Otto Hornickel, Ehren und Rang-
predikate in den Papyrusurkunden·. E in Beitrag zum römischen und
byzantinischen Titelwesen. Leipzig, 1930.
Jahresh. d. Österr. Arch. In st. = Jahreshefte des österreichischen archeolo-
gischen In stituts.
P . Jan d. — E. Schaefer, L. Eisner, L. Spohr, G. Spieß, P a p y r i Jandanae.
Leipzig, 1912— 14.
J E A = Journal of E gyptian Archeology.
Johnson, Princeton P a p y ri = A. C. Johnson, H. B. Van Hoesen, P a p y ri
in the Princeton U niversity Collection. Baltim ore, 1930.
Jouguet, Vie M unicipale = P. Jouguet, L a Vie M unicipale dans l'É gypte
Romaine. Paris, 1911.
Journ. Sav. = Journal des Savants.
Ju st. = Codex Justinianus.
E . K uhn, Stadt. Verfassung = E . Kuhn, D ie städtische und bürgerliche
Verfassung des römischen Reichs bis auf die Zeiten Ju stin ians, 2 vols.
Leipzig, 1864/65.
P . L eipz. = L. M itteis, Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussam m lung zu
Leipzig. Leipzig, 1906.
Lesquier, L'Armée romaine = J. Lesquier, L ’Armée romaine d’É gypte
d ’A uguste à Dioclétien. Caire, 1918. B ulletin de l’In stitu t français
d'Archéologie orientale du Caire, vol. 41.
Lett, d i M axim os = Girolamo Vitelli, Lettera di Maximos a Chairemon
ed Eudaim on suoi figliuoli. S tu di ita lia n i d i Filol. Class. N . S., 9
(1932), fase. 4.
Lewald, Grundbuchrecht = H . Lewald, Beiträge zur K enn tn is des ä g yp ­
tischen Grundhuchrechtes. Leipzig, 1909.
P . Land. = F. K enyon, H . I. Bell, Greek P a p y ri in the B ritish M useum,
vols. I — IV . London 1893— 1917.
P . M arinarica — M. Norsa e G. V itelli, R egistri fondiari della Marmarioa.
I l papiro Vaticano greco 11. S tu di e testi S3. Citta del V aticano,
B iblioteca apostolica Vaticana. 1931.
Martin, Les Épistratèges = V. Martin, Les Épistratèges. Geneva, 1911.
M èi. Glotz = Mélanges Glotz I 1932.
M èi. Thom. = Mélanges P a u l Thomas. Bruges, 1930.
P . M èi. V. Loret = G. Vitelli, B ull, de ΓIn st, f ranę. 30 (1930), 59— 63.
Meyer, Heerwesen = P. M. Meyer, D as Heerwesen der Ptolemäer unÂ
Römer in Ä gypten. Leipzig, 1900.
Meyer, Ju r. P a p . = P. M. Meyer, Juristische P a p y ri. Berlin, 1920.
P . M ich. lat. — H . A. Sanders, Two Fragm entary Birth-Certificates
from the Michigan Collection. M emoirs of the Am erican A cadem y
in Rome, 9 (1931), 61— 68.
Milne, H ist, of E g yp t = J. G. Milne, A H isto ry of E g yp t under Roman
Rule. 3rd edition. London, 1924.
Milne, Gr. Inscr. = J. G. Milne, Greek Inscriptions. Oxford, 1905.
List of Abbreviations X III
M itteis, ehrest.
M ittels, Grundz. = L. M itteis und U . W ilcken, Orundzüge und Chresto­
mathie der P apyruskunde. Leipzig-Berlin, 1912. Vol. II, pt. 1, Qrund-
züge·, vol. I I p t. 2, Chrestomathie.
M itteis, Röm. Privatrecht = L. M itteis, Römisches Privatrecht bis a u f die
Z eit Diokletians. Leipzig, 1908.
Mommsen, StaatsrechF = Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, vols.
I— III. I. II., 3rd edition. Leipzig, 1887, 1888.
Mommsen, (Sim/recfif = Th. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht. Leipzig, 1899.
N ouv. Revue = Nouvelle Revue historique de droit fran çais et étranger.
Oertel, D ie Liturgie = Fr. Oertel, D ie Liturgie. Leipzig, 1917.
P . Oslo — S. Eitrem , Leiv Am undsen, Papyri Osloenses. Det N orske
Videnskaps-Akadem i i Oslo. Oslo, 1925— 31.
O tto, Priester und Tem pel = W . O tto, Priester und Tem pel im helle­
nistischen Ä gypten, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1905— 08.
P . O xy. = B. P. Grenfell, A. S. H u nt, The Oxyrhynchus P a p y ri, vols.
I— X V II. Oxford, 1898— 1927.
P . P ar. = W . B runet de Presle, Les P a p yru s grecs du M usée du Louvre.
Paris, 1865.
P ark er, PomawLevions = H . M .D . Parker, The Roman Legions. Oxford,1928.
P . Petr. = J . P . M ahaffy, On the Flinders Petrie Papyri, w ith Transcrip­
tions and Commentaries. R o ya l Irish Academ y, Cunningham M em ­
oirs, P t. 2. D ublin, 1893.
P h il. = Philologus.
P . P reis. = Fr. Preisigke, Griechische Urkunden des Ägyptischen M useum s
zu K a iro . Straßburg, 1911.
Preisigke, D ie Inschrift von Skaptoparene = Fr. Preisigke, D ie Inschrift
von Skaptoparene in ihrer Beziehung zur kaiserlichen K anzlei in
Rom . Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Straßburg.
H eft 30. Straßburg, 1917.
Prosop. Im p . Rom. = E. Klebs, H . Dessau, P . Rohden, Prosopographia im ­
perii Rom ani. Vols. I— III. Berlin, 1897/8.
Raccolta Lumbroso — Raccolta d i scritti in onore d i Giacomo Lumbroso.
Milan, 1925.
R E = Pauly-W issowa-Kroll, Realenzyklopädie der klassischen A ltertum s­
wissenschaft.
P . Rein. = Th. Reinach, P a p yru s grecs et demotiques. Paris, 1905.
Rev. ét. grec. = Revue des études grecques.
Rh. M us. = Rheinisches M useum.
Röm . M itt. = M itteilungen des deutschen archeologischen In stituts.
Römische Abteilung.
P . Ross.-Georg. = G. Zeretelli, O. Krueger, P. Jernstedt, P a p y ri Russischer
und Georgischer Sammlungen. Tiflis, 1925— 30.
R ostow zew , K olonat = M. R ostow zew , Studien zur Geschichte des römischen
K olonats. Archiv fü r Papyrusforschung, B eiheft 1. Leipzig, 1910.
P . R y l. = J . Johnson, V. Martin, A. S. H unt, Catalogue of the Greek
P a p y ri in the John R ylan ds L ibrary, vol. I I. Manchester, 1915.
S a v .Z . = Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fü r Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische
Abteilung.
S B . = Fr. Preisigke, Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ä gypten,
vols. I and I I. Straßburg, 1913— 22; Fr. Bilabel, vol. III. Berlin
und Leipzig, 1926— 27; idem, vol. IV . Heidelberg, 1931.
X IV List of Abbreviations

Schubart, D ie Griechen in Ä gypten = W . Schubart, D ie Griechen in

Ä gypten. Beihefte zum alten Orient, H eft 10. Leipzig, 1927.
Schubart, P . gr. Berol. = W . Schubart, P a p y ri graecae Berolinenses.
Bonn, 1911.
Schürer, Geschichte d. Ju d. = E . Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes
im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3 vols. 4 th edition. Leipzig, 1901— 11.
P S I = Pubblicazioni della società italiana per la ricerca dei p a p iri greci
e latin i in Egitto, vols. 1— 10. Florence, 1912— 32.
Sitzb. A k. Beri. = Sitzungsberichte der preußischen Akadem ie der W issen­
schaften.
Sitzb. W ien. A k. = Sitzungsberichte der Akadem ie der Wissenschaften in
CHAPTER I
Wien.
A. Stein, Έπίσκεψις = A. Stein, Έπίσκεψις. Charisteria A lois Rzach zum A PPO IN TM EN T, P O S IT IO N , AND PO W ER S
achtzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht, 176— 80. Reiohenberg, 1930.
A. Stein, Nachlese der Präfekten = A. Stein, Nachlese zur Liste der 1. A ppointm ent
Präfekten von Ä gypten. Jahresh. d. Österr. Arch. In st. 3 (1900),
210ff. At the head of the government of Egypt, which fell into his
Stein, Untersuchungen = A . Stein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte hands by the conquest of Alexandria on August 1, 30 B. C., Oc-
der Verwaltung Ä gyptens unter römischer Herrschaft. Stuttgart, 1915.
P . Straß. — Fr. Preisigke, Griechische P a p yru s der U niversitäts- und tavian placed a Roman knight, C. Cornelius Gallus^, who in his
L andesbibliothekzuStraßburg,vols.I—II. Straßburg,Leipzig, 1906— 20. person and in his prerogatives carried on, subject to the pleasure
Stud. — C. W essely, Studien zur Palaeographie und P apyruskunde, of Octavian, the functions of the Ptolemaic monarch. Except for
vols. I— X X III. Leipzig, 1901— 23. this change in the head of the government, the internal organization
S tudi Bonfante = S tu di in onore di P . Bonfante. Voi. I l l , Pavia, 1929;
voi. IV . Pavia, 1933.
of the country was but slightly modified
J. G. Tait, Greek Ostraca in the Bodleian L ib ra ry at Oxford and Various By appointing to the governorship of Egypt a man who was not
other Collections, voi. I. London, 1930. only chosen by himself, but who was also a member of the equestrian
Τ Α Ρ Α — Transactions and Proceedings of the Am erican Philological order, Octavian took into his own hands the administration of
Association. the newly acquired territory. The senate was excluded from all
Taubenschlag, D as Strafrecht = R. Taubenschlag, D as Strafrecht im Rechte
der P a p y ri. Leipzig und Berlin, 1916. participation in the government of Egypt and senators were for­
P . Teh. = B. P. Grenfell, A. S. H unt, J. G. Sm yly, E. J . Goodspeed, bidden officially to set foot upon Egyptian soil®. Several serious
The Tebtunis P a p y ri, voi. II. London, 1902, 1907. considerations may have led to this course of action. Octavian
P . Thead. = P. Jouguet, P ap yru s de Théadelphie. Paris, 1911. recognized, as did Julius Caesar before him^, that the economic
P . Tor. = A. Peyron, P a p y ri graeci R . Taurinensis M usei A eg yp tii,
2 vols. Turin, 1826, 1827.
importance and the strategical position of Egypt made it the
U xkull-Gyllenband, Gnomon = BG U V, voi. 2. potential base of operations for one aspiring to sole rule, and he
Weiß, Studien = E . Weiß, Studien zu den römischen Rechtsquellen. Leipzig, took the steps which his uncle would undoubtedly have taken,
1914. had he lived, to insure himself control over this important region®.
W essely, Spec. isag. = C. W essely, P apyrorum scripturae graecae
specim ina isagogica. Leipzig, 1900.
1 Strabo, 17, 797; D io, 51, 9; 52, 3.
IVilcken, Chrest Ì
Wilcken, Grundz f = M itteis und U . W ilcken, Grundzüge und Chresto­ 2 Strabo, 17, 798, "Ρωμαίοι S' είς δύναμιν, ώς είπεΐν, επψώρΰωσαν πό?.λα.
Strabo’s statem ent cannot be taken too literally. I t was the policy of
mathie der P apyruskunde. Leipzig-Berlin, 1912. Voi. I pt. 1, Grund­ R om an statesm en to m aintain the form of existing institutions, and
züge·, voi. I pt. 2, Chrestomathie.
gradually to change their functions. This was the policy followed in E gypt.
Wilcken, Ostr. — IJ. W ilcken, Griechische Ostraka aus Ä gypten und ® Tac. Ann. 2, 59. Of course senators m ight visit E gyp t, but only
Nubien, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1899.
after securing perm ission from the emperor. Cf. the visit of C. Num onius
P . W is. = Papyri of the U niversity of W isconsin in typew ritten doctoral V aia to the Isis tem ple at Philae, C IL , 3, 74 (25. Mar. 2 B. C.); the visit
dissertations of that institution, to which specific reference is made of a consularis to the statue of Memnon in 205, C IL 3, 52, add. p. 968.
in the notes.
M. A. L evi, L’esclusione dei senatori romani dell’ E gitto Augusteo. A egyp-
Zehetmair, De A ppellationibus = A loysius Zehetmair, De A ppellationibus
Honorificis in P a p y ris Graecis Obviis. D iss. Marburg, 1911. tu s 5 (1924), 231— 35.
^ Sueti Ju l. 35. — ^ D io, 51.
K e ì n m a t h , T h e P re fe c t o£ E g y p t 1
2 Appointment, Position, and Powers
It must have been evident to Octavian that the senate had for­
feited any claim to the management of Egypt by the inefficiency
and corruptibility in provincial government of many of its mem­
bers, that the old system of provincial government was outmoded,
and that the only way to secure a more effective administration
was to assume the responsibility himself. Whether or not we call
Egypt a province, we must recognize that its administration was
in some respects unique In the organization of Egypt as carried
out by Augustus we may well see one of the steps in the develop­
ment of the absolute power of the princeps. The successors of
Augustus continued his policy of governing Egypt through a prefect
chosen from the equestrian order
The prefect’s position was one of great power. As the direct
representative of the emperor and responsible to him alone, he
exercised almost regal prerogatives. Egypt was a land with a great
wealth of natural resources. In the early empire Rome was, to a
large extent, dependent upon it for the wheat with which to feed
the city populace. The distribution of grain was one of the most
important factors in holding the good will of the people at Rome.
One who held control of the fertile Nile valley could therefore
exercise great power in the making or unmaking of emperors.
Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by Ti. Julius Alexander, the
prefect of Egypt, on July 1, 69, and although he had been acclaimed
emperor by the legions under his command in Syria some days
previous to this, such was the importance of the possession of
Egypt, that the beginning of his principate was reckoned from the
day on which Egypt had gone over to him^. That the position of the
prefect of Egypt was considered one of power and importance is indi­
cated also by the fact that Nero is said to have considered petition­
ing Galba for that place when Galba was proclaimed emperor^.
2. Position in Egypt
To the inhabitants of Egypt the prefect stood in the place of
the king. Strabo speaks of the prefect as having the rank of king
1 W ilcken, Grundz. 28, note 2. B. A. von Groningen, A egyptus 7 (1926),
189— 202, holds th at while E gyp t was administered in a unique w ay,
it was not, as Mommsen m aintained (Oes. S d ir. 4, 256), united to the empire
m erely in th e person of the emperor or his personal property, but was
rather expressly assigned b y the people to the emperor for administration
b y him.
“ Tac. H ist. 1, 11; D io, 53, 13, 2.
3 Tac. H ist. 1, 79; ibid. 3, 8 ; Suet. Vesp. 6 ; D io, 65, 9.
* Tac. H ist. 1, 31; Suet. Nero 47; D io, 63, 27 gives a different account.
Position in Egypt 3
and adds that certain privileges tvhich formerly belonged to the
king were now the prerogatives of the prefect t. He was subject
to the same taboo as were the kings with regard to voyaging upon
the Nile when it was in flood He seems to have carried out an
ancient ceremony in which the Pharaohs and the Ptolemies after
them had engaged. W ilcken suggests a probable reconstruction
of the ceremony. The king was wont to make a trip with his suite
to a place on the Upper Nile where the river flowed between
towering cliffs. Into a chasm, which was thought to be one of
the sources of the Nile, gold and silver presents were thrown, either
to invoke its blessings, or in thanksgiving for its abundant imm-
dation. Seneca mentions the prefect apparently in connection
with the same ceremony®. In haec ora {Nili) stipern sacerdotes et
aura dona praefecti, cum solemne venit sacrum iaciunt*^.
A popular picture of the prefect is given by the speech of an
advocate against a certain Maximus, clearly a prefect, in a trial
apparently held before the emperor®. Whether the speech was
delivered in an actual trial or not, does not make the description
of the official denounced in it (perhaps C. Vibius Maximus, prefect
103—107) less pertinent. There are references to the regal state
which he assumed, to the crowd of clients who waited at the great
man’s door to greet him, to his chamberlain, to petitions addressed
to him, to his power of confiscating property, to death sentences
pronounced by him, and to court held by him at Memphis and at
Pelusium. The speech makes charges against Maximus of money
lending but accuses him chiefly of improper relations with a hand­
some boy. It is interesting to note that on two inscriptions found
in Egypt, the name of the prefect C. Vibius Maximus has been
purposely erased®. If the identification is correct, the charges
were perhaps at least partially based upon facts, and his recall
was perhaps brought about by complaints from Egypt.
Except for the trilingual inscription praising the exploits of
Gallus, which he had himself erected throughout Egypt’, we find
no inscriptions honoring the prefects alone but their names are
linked with that of the emperor who had sent out “such a good
1 Strabo, 17, 797 and 818. — “ Pliny, N . H . 5, 57.
3 W ilcken, Arch. 3 (1906), 326— 27. — * Seneca, Quaest. N atur. 4, 2, 7.
® P . Oxy. ’ 471; c/. W ilcken, Arch. 3 (1906), 117.
» Cagnat, IG R R , 1175. So also a m ilestone, C IL , 3, 14148^; cf. IG R R ,
1357.
’ D io, 53, 23, 5; Cagnat, IG R R , 1293 (17. Apr. 29 B . C.).
1*
4 Appointment, Position, and Powers
prefect^”. In his letter to the Alexandrians, the emperor Claudius
granted them permission to set up an eqtrestrian statue “of my
procurator^”, and Philo charges the prefect Avilius Flaccus with
permitting the erection of statues, perhaps of the prefect, in the
Jewish synagogues®. In the middle of the fourth century we find
a strategus and a légistes in a letter to a statue maker ordering
a statue to be made of the prefect Poniponius Metrodorus*.
We may be sure that on his trips of inspection the prefect was
welcomed with ceremony and acclaim. The minutes of a meeting
record frequent acclamations of “our most excellent prefect®”.
The statues of the gods were wreathed at his coming®, and cele­
brations were held in his honor^. A document of the year 203
records that the epistrategus took charge of the Great Games of
Antinoë in place of his excellency the prefect Maecius Laetus®.
3. Position in the Empire
The prefecture of Egypt was for a short time after its creation
the highest rank in the equestrian cursus. The men who came to
govern Egypt were, for the most part, men of tried ability, who
were promoted to that post after a long official career®. H irsch -
feld notes that Tiberius promoted Seius Strabo, the father of
Seianus, to the rank of prefect of Egypt after he had served as
prefect of the praetorian guard. A similar change was proposed
for Sertorius Macro, but in his case it was removal that Caligula
had in mind rather than promotion^®. When the praetorian guard
came to play an important part in the creation of emperors, the
prefecture of Egypt occupied a position second to it in impor­
tance.
Of the prefects known to us, only one is definitely attested to
have been an Egyptian by birth, Ti. Julius Alexander, the son
1 Cagnat, lO R R , 1109, a stone erected in honor of Augustus, Livia,
Caius, and Lucius Caesar, and the prefect Caius Turranius; Cagnat, IG R R ,
1110, a decree of Busiris in honor of Nero, the Άγα&ος Δαίμων (cf. P . O xy. 7,
1021) and his prefect Balbillus; D itt. OOIS 666, in honor of Balbillus;
Cagnat, IG R R , 1295, an adulatory poem extolling Augustus and “ the
great Turranius, a just m an, his prefect.”
2 B ell, Jew s and Christians, 24, 11. 42— 43, and notes.
5 Philo, in Place. 41. — « P . O xy. 1, 66 (357).
^ P . O xy. 10, 1305 (late third century). — * P . Land. 3, p. 112ff.
’ P . Giss. Bibl. 16. — « P S I , 3, 199 (203). — ® Strabo, 17, 797.
Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten, 347.
Position in the Empire 5
of a Jewish alabarch at Alexandria^. He is also alone among the
prefects in having filled the position of epistrategus before his
appointment to the prefecture, being epistrategus of the Thebaid®.
Two juridici, C. Caecina Tuscus and C. Caecilius Salvianus are
known to have been promoted to the position of prefect and
acting prefect respectively, and the other acting prefects, who
seem to have held office only until a successor could be appointed
(except ]\Iussius Aemilianus who is attested to have been both
acting prefect and prefect) may also have been iuridici (c/. A. S te in ,
Die Juridici Alexandreae. Arch. 1 [1901], 445ff.). There is no
example of an imperial freedman occupying the position of prefect,
although under Tiberius Hiberus was acting prefect, which is in
itself strange enough since one would expect one of the equestrian
officials already in Egypt to take over the responsibilities of the
office®.
Although Philo says of Flaccus that he received a government
that was intended to last six years*, there seems to have been no
fixed term of office for the prefect of Egypt. The uncle of Seneca
is said to have held this post for sixteen years®. For the most
part the terms of office were short, the next longest term known
being a little over seven years®. There seems to be no clear evi­
dence to indicate that anyone held office a second time’.
It was the policy of the emperors to change the prefect frequently
in order to prevent any one man from acquiring too great power
and prestige. By its isolated position and by its other natural
features, Egypt readily lent itself to separate administration. A
comparatively small force could hold it against attack from the
outside. The inhabitants of Egypt proper, that is apart from the
citizens of Alexandria, ground down by long years of labor for
^ Josephus, A n t. 20, 5, 2; Tiberius Julius Alexander Julianus perhaps
a grandson of the prefect, Stech, Senatores Rom ani, KKo, 10 (1912),
174f., Beihejt.
^ Martin, Les Źpistrateges, 185.
" R E , 8, 1392; c/. Arch. 4 (1907), 153; D io, 58, 19, 6.
Philo, in Place. 8. — ^ Seneca, Cons, ad Helv. 19.
® C. Galerius 27 to c. 31 according to Milne, H ist, of E gypt, 12; Can-
tarelli convincingly identifies Galerius w ith the uncle of Seneca, Per
Pamministrazione e la storia dell’ E gitto Romano. A egyptus 8 (1927),
89·— 96. The n ex t longest term of office is that of Subatianus Aquila,
202/3— 210, Milne, op. cit. 59.
’ Magius Maximus is said by Philo, in Place. 74 to have been prefect
tw ice although substantiation is lacking. Vitrasius Pollio, Cagnat, IG R R ,
1057, certainly did n ot hold office tw ice (Dio, 58, 19, 6 is wrong), Stein,
Jahresh. d. Osterr. Arch. In st. Beibl. 3 (1900), 210; Cantarolli, Rom. M itt.
19 (1904), 15— 22.
6 Appointment, Position, and Powers
revenue-greedy masters, were docile and indifferent. The inhabi­
tants of Alexandria, on the other hand, were ready to follow any
leader who might call them. The prefects of Egypt were allowed
wide latitude in the exercise of their office. But if one of them
was misled by his power into forgetting that he held it by the
grace of the emperor alone, and assumed an air of independence,
he was soon recalled and even punished. That was the experience
of Cornelius Callus whose success is suppressing a revolt in the
Thebaid aroused in him a spirit of insolence and of vainglory,
save that he took his own life before he could be p u n i s h e d T i­
berius sent his intimate friend, Avilius Flaccus, to govern Egypt
and followed his actions with great care. The precautions taken
by Caligula’s agent, who waited until nightfall before entering the
city of Alexandria, and who seized Flaccus while he was d in in g
at the home of Tiberius’ freedman attended by only a few slaves,
serves to show the strong position held by the prefects at their
seat in Alexandria
That there was constant danger of an uprising against Rome
led by an ambitious prefect is indicated by the fact that attempts
at revolt in which the prefect was involved did occur. Mussius
Aemilianus (prefect in 257) was proclaimed emperor in Egypt®.
According to Dio 71, 22, Avidius Cassius who caused himself to
be proclaimed emperor in Egypt during the rebellion of the year
175 was the son of Avidius Heliodorus, who was prefect in 143*.
C. Calvisius Statianus, the prefect at the time of the rebellion,
was banished for the part he had taken in the uprising®. The
usurper Firmus is probably not to be identified with the prefect
of the same name®.
The prefect’s office lost much of its former prestige and power
when Egypt declined in wealth and importance in the period
preceding Severus Alexander. At that time Egypt was no longer
‘ D io, 53, 23, 5. — ^ Philo, in Flacc. 113.
® H ist. A ug. trig. tyr. 22; Perhaps a coin issued by Aem ilianus in Poole,
Catalogue of Coins of A lexandria, 299, no. 2306; P . O xy. 9, 1201 (258);
J. G. Milne, J E A 10 (1924), 80— 82 m aintains that Aem ilianus never
claim ed royal power but was loyal to Gallienus against the Syrian legions.
^ P . O xy. 1, 33 verso (late second century). The Appian who appeared
before the emperor as an en voy of the people of Alexandria appealed
to a certain Heliodorus (ibid. I 6— I 9). Heliodorus m ay have been,
as the editors suggest, the ex-prefect of th a t name, and Appian, the
envoy, Heliodorus’ son, A vidius Cassius.
^ Stein, Arch. 4 (1908), 150.
® P . O xy. 9, 1194 (c. 265); Vopiscus, F irm us, 3; Cantarelli, Prefetti,
s. V. Firmus, 116.
Position in the Empire Filling of a Vacancy 7
relied upon as the only source of Rome’s grain supply. The prefect
of Egypt was potentially no more dangerous as a rival of the
emperor than the head of any other province. It was no longer
felt necessary to hold to the policy of excluding senators from
official position in Egypt. Macrinus was the first to send out a
senator, Marius Secundus, who had been senatorial legate of Syria
Phoenicia. He accompanied Julius Basilianus, who had been
named to succeed Valerius Datus as prefect, and he perhaps filled
the office of dioecetes*. Severus Alexander appointed Epagathus
(after 228) to the office of prefect after he had led a mutiny of
the praetorian guard at Rome, “as though this was a place where
he could be removed from any chance of making mischief®.” Egypt
played no great part in the making of emperors following Severus
Alexander, and acquiesced in the choice of the western provinces®.
The prefect of Egypt enjoyed proconsular powers. Nam divus
Augustus apud equestris qui Aegypto praesiderent lege agi decretaque
eorum proinde haberi iusserat ac si magistratus Romani consti-
tuissent (Tac. Ann. 12, 60) and an imperium ad similitudinem pro-
consulis was given to him under Augustus. He could not leave
Egypt before his successor had entered Alexandria*. He possessed
the ius gladii and the power of sentencing criminals to the mines®.
He was the head of the financial, judicial, and military branches
of the government. In the early empire he apparently enjoyed a
greater degree of freedom in the exercise of his powers, but as the
emperors subjected him to greater supervision his position came
to be but little higher than that of a procurator.
4. Filling of a Vacancy
In the event of an unexpected vacancy in the prefecture, an
acting prefect, διαδεχόμενος την ηγεμονίαν or κατά την ηγεμονίαν^
was chosen from among the other high officials who had been
sent out from Rome and were in Egypt. The δικαιοδοτης (o των
^ Milne, H ist, of E gypt, 65; D io, 78, 35. — ^ D io, 80, 2.
Milne, H ist, of E g yp t, 68.
* U lp. D ig. 1, 17, 1, Praefectus A eg yp ti noti priu s deponit praefecturani
et im perium quod ad sim ilitudinem proconsulis lege sub Augusto ei datum
est, quam Alexandream ingressus sit successor eius, licet in provinciam
venerit. S. Solazzio, D i una pretesa legge di Augusto relative all’ E gitto.
A egyptus 9 (1928), 296— 300, shows convincing reason for considering
fhe clause, quod . . . datum est, a gloss.
^ U lp . D ig. 1, 18, 6, 8.
‘ Stein, Arch. 4 (1 9 0 8 ), 1 4 8 f f .; Meyer, K lio , 7 (1 9 0 7 ), 1 2 2 ff., 1 4 4 ;
ΕΘΌ, 1, 327 (1 6 6 ); H ir s c h f e ld , Verwaltungsbeamten, 3 5 0 — 352.
8 Appointment, Position, and Powers
πολλών κρίσεων — Strabo 17, 1, 12) was usually named acting
prefect in such cases, although in one instance an imperial freedman
was sent out from Rome to assume this office (see p. 5). In addition
to the acting prefect, we find in P. Ryl. 84, 7 (1. Aug. 146) an
official who called himself o διαδεχόμενος την Πρόκλον . . . εις
την Αίγυπτον αποδημίαν. W ilck en has given a convincing explanation
of the functions of this official^. He Avas not filling a vacancy
in the prefecture nor was he holding the conventus for the prefect.
On August 1 the Nile was rising. Since, according to the ancient
taboo, the prefect could not voyage on the river at such times,
this official Avas sent to represent the prefect if important business
demanded his presence in the country during the period of the
Nile floods.
5. Relation to Other Officials Sent out from Rome
Like the dioecetes, the idiologus, the procurator usiacus, and later
the catholicus, were of equestrian rank and were subordinate to
the prefect although he apparently could not remove them from
office 2. For the guidance of the idiologus in the administration
of his office, Augustus had laid doAvn a series of regulative ordi­
nances. These were modified from time to time by the emperors,
the senate, the prefects, and by the idiologi themselves®. A copy
of the principal heads in the official Greek translation is preserved
for us under the name of the Gnomon of the Idiologus in BGU.
vol. 5 (the second volume of the Gnomon now edited AAuth full
commentary by Graf Uxkull-Gyllenband).
The prefect acted to support the idiologus in the exercise of
his peculiar functions, as well as to keep him from encroaching
upon provinces not his own. Within his OAvn sphere of administration
the idiologus could lay doAvn provisions regarding taxation“**. The
prefect Julius Alexander ordained in his edict of the year 69 that
severe punishment was to be meted out to the prosecuting attornies
in the office of the idiologus AA^ho brought charges against anyone
on a matter that had already been decided by the idiologus. He
promised that he would order the idiologus to bring all innovations
running counter to the dispensations of the emperors into
conformity with thems. The prefect Avas, then, superior to the
^ W ilcken, Arch. 6 (1920), 376— 77.
2 C/. the late regulation (395) Justinian, 1, 37, 2, praefechw A-u^istulis
ordinariorum sub se iudicum exam inandi fla g itia ac super his rejerendi, non
amovendi vet puniendi habeat potestatem.
3 BG U , 5, Proem.. 1— 5. — « D itt. OGIS 669, 39. — ■> ibid. 1. 44; 654, 3.
Titles and Appellatives 9
idiologus and Avas empowered to make amendments to the gnomon
governing the latter’s actions. The prefect’s amendments in turn
Avere always kept in agreement with the Avill of the emperors as
expressed in edicts, rescripts, and letters.
6. Titles and Appellatives
In the Greek version of the inscription concerning Gallus men­
tioned above, the prefect refers to himself as o [επί] τής Αίγυπτον
καταστα&είς and more fully in the Latin version as praefect[us
Alex]andreae et Aegypti. It is Avell knoAvn that Alexandria was not
considered a part of Egypt but Avas usually referred to as adjoining
it, Αλ^εζανδρεία ή προς ΑΙγνπτω. The distinction AA^as retained in the
title of the prefect aaL o is variously called by oirr literary sources,
τής Αλεξανδρείας καί τής χώρας επίτροπος'^, τφ διέποντι την Αίγυπ­
τον καί την Αλεξάνδρειαν'^, δ τής Αίγυπτου αρχων^. Claudius referred
to his prefect Vitrasius Pollio as d έμός επίτροπος^, Avhile Hadrian
called the prefect d έπαρχος μου^. The general designation for the
governor of a province in the documents emanating from the
chancery of the emperor was d ηγούμενος τοϋ εϋνους, and this
designation was applied also to the prefect of Egypt®.
In the edicts issued by the prefects, beginning Avith an edict
of Mettius Rufus in the year 89’, they apply to themselves the
official title, έπαρχος Αίγυπτου. Prior to this date no title is used
in these official documents. In the numerous papyri in Avhich a
reference is made to the prefect, ήγεμων is employed almost without
exception. In the letter of Claudius to the people of Alexandria
mention is made of certain privileges granted νπο των προ εμοϋ
ηγεμόνων καί ταιν βασιλέων καί τών έπαρχων, Avhere ήγεμών is applied
to the holder of the principate, and έπαρχος to the holder of the
prefecture®. The titular name, έπαρχος, taken from the title of
the commander of a body of soldiers, apparently gave way in direct
address as AA'ell as in references to the prefect to the more imposing
ήγεμών.
Until the time of Nero, no appellative indicative of rank was
applied to the prefect. With sporadic exceptions 6 κράτιστος {vir
1 Pliilo, in Place. 1. — “ Jos. B . J . 4, 016.
=> D io, 53, 29; 54, 5; 63, 16; 71, 28; c/. Euseb. H . E . 6, 2.
^ Bell, Jeius and Christians, 24, 11. 42— 43; c/. Plin. N . H . 36, 7.
^ P . P a r. 68, col. V I verso 6, 8— 29; W ilcken, Abh. Sachs. Ges. W iss.
27 (1909), 812— 13, 819.
« P . O xy. 7, 1020 (198/200). — ’ P . O xy. 2, 237, col. V III 27— 43.
* Bell, Jew s and Christians, 24— 25, 11. 57— 59.
10 Appointment, Position, and Powers

egregius) was used from the time of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius;
o λαμπρότατος was the common designation for senators, from the
time of Antonins Pius to approximately 270, because, no doubt,
senators were being appointed to the prefecture of Egypt in this
period; and from 270 to the year 334 o διααημοτατος {vir per-
fectissimus). From the middle of the fourth century, o λαμπρότατος
came into common use again

1 Zehetmair, De A ppellationibus, 12— 20; c/. O. Hornickel, Ehren und

Bangpradikate. CHAPTEK n

THE O FFIC IA L S R E S P O N S IB L E TO TH E PR E FE C T

In the time of the empire Egypt was divided into the Thebaid,
the Seven Nomes and Arsinoë, and the Delta, and at the head
of each of these geographical divisions was placed an official in
charge of the civil administration, the epistrategus, who was of
equestrian rank and received his appointinënt at the hands of the
emperor^. These three regions were further divided into nomes,
the administrative heads of which were the strategi. We shall
have more to say of the strategus in his capacity as chief ad­
ministrative agent of the prefect in matters of finance and taxation.

1. Officials Appointed by the Prefect

The prefect appointed the strategus of each nome, usually an
Egyptian by birth, from a list of names submitted to him perhaps
by the epistrategus. The office was held for a term of three years
An acting strategus was appointed by the prefect if the strategus
was forced to be absent, or was unable for any other cause to
perform his duties. The basilicogrammateus, as a rule, appears
as his substitute®. It appears very likely that the basiUcogramma-
feus was also named for his office by the prefect. The prefect
could remove the strategus as well as the other officers of the
nome for incompetence, and could accept their resignations for*

* W ilcken, Orundz. 35f.

^ D itt. OGIS, 669, 35. On th e strategus see W ilcken, Hermes, 27
(1892), 287— 300; T ait, JE A , 8 (1922), 166ff.; N . Hohlwein, Le Stratège
du Nom e. M usée Belge, 28 (1924), 125— 54.
^ P . P a y . 117 (108). In P . Oiss. 41 (end of Trajan’s reign), a strategus
addresses a request to the prefect for a leave of absence of six ty days to
arrange his personal affairs in his n ative nome, where his possessions need
attention because of the revolt of the Jew s.
 12 The Officials Responsible to the Prefect
other reasons^. In addition to their salaries certain taxes ΛνβΓΟ
reserved as υποκείμενα to serve as perquisites for the strategiis
and the basilieogramniateus, but it was necessary for a higher
official to authorize the withdrawal of the accrued funds from the
local banks
2. Civic Personnel
There was need of a large staff in the office of the prefect to
care for the vast amount of business of a greatly diversified cha­
racter that came under his jurisdiction®.
At the head of the chancery of the prefect stood the hypomne-
matograph, the a commentariis praefecti AegyptP. He acted as
chief aid to the prefect in his judiciary capacity and had charge
of the court records. It was his function to prejrare all information,
and assemble all documentary material in cases that came before
the prefect. The office corresponded to that of the a cognitionibus
of the emperor s staff and Lucian speaks with pride of his appoint­
ment to this position which, as he tells us, carried Avith it no mean
salary and was the stepping stone to a procuratorial career®. Among
other men known to have held this office we must reckon the
Lampo who, as Philo tells us {inFlaccum, 16) served under Flaccus.
The chief of the prefect’s archives, who was in charge of the
documents that found their way into the prefect’s office, v^as knoAvn
as the βίβλίοφνλαζ. He was the head of the library in which the
νπομνηματισμοί of the prefect were kept**.
One of the subordinates in this record office Avas the αιρετής^
or as he is elsewhere called the προαιρέτης^. His work was to find
r> ^ typew ritten doctoral dissertation of
Uertrude Malz. The prefect banishes a com ogramm ateus for some action
n ot m entioned.
2 P . O xy. 3, 474, 31— 41 (184?). — » Philo, in Flacc. 1.
* P . O xy. 12, 1434, 9 (107/8); P . Teb. 286, 13 (117— 137); von
Prem erstein, a commentariis, R E , 4, 764; Meyer, Arch. 3 (1906), 72, note 1;
Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten, 331, note 2 ; Stein, Untersuchungen,
187— 206 gives a detailed study of the “Kanzlei des Präfekten.” He
recognizes the είσαγωγενς as the director of the registration of documents
and thinks of a number of νπομνηματογράφοι whose business it was to
record all official acts of the prefect, am ong them the reports of judicial
proceedings.
® Lucian, Αφοί. 12.
‘ O P R , 1, 18; 41 (124); P . L eipz. 1, 123, 12 (136); W ilcken, Arch. 7
(1924), 96 97; S B , 4, 7362, 24 (185/6), A vius Callimachus, βιβλιοψύλαί
of th e ηγεμονική βιβ?,ιο&ήκη.
’ P . O xy. 14, 1654 (c. 150).
« P . L eipz. 1, 123, 12 (136); cf. W ilcken, Arch. 7 (1924), 96— 97.
Civic Personnel Military Staff 13
.^iid bring out the particular document required. He received a
fee for this service from private persons who desired to have copies
of certain documents made.
We read also of a freedman filling the position of άρχηαβλάρως,
perhaps a chief clerk in one of the administrative offices. The
particular individual to whom reference is made later became
επίτροπος προσόδων Άλεξα{νδρείας]^.
‘ Miss Medea N or sa sees in the agrimensor of the prefect of Egypt
a Idnd of quartermaster or magister officioimm^. I should rather
suggest that he was exactly what his name implies, — a surveyor,
one of a class of men to whom reference is several times made in
the Trajan-Pliny correspondence under the name Ubrator. Their
services were much in demand in the work of public construction
and they were apparently attached to the provincial governor’s
staff®. Their advice would certainly be needed in the preliminary
planning for the record office whose erection the prefect Minicius
Italus commanded in a letter addressed to the strategic.
At the head of the important department that concerned itself
with the assessment, computation, and audit of the revenues was
an officer whom we may call the chief eclogistes, although his
title is not attested®. The heads of this office under Tiberius and
Claudius were the freedmen Stephanie and Basilides respectively®.
The άρχιστάτωρ of the prefect was an official of some importance
occupying a position analogous to a sergeant-at-arms in a court
of law’.
3. Military Staff
Of the military staff of the prefect we know the princeps^, who
is perhaps to be regarded as the same officer referred to as oin
cnoQj^ov Aiyvjtzov (primipilarius)®. A beneficiarius of the prefect
of Egypt is attested for the latter half of the third century^®.
^ Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten, 362; Cagnat, IG R R , 1103.
^ S B , 3, 7181. — ® Plin. epist. 10, 42. 40 and 41.
* C/· PP· 26 and 75. — ® W ilcken, Qrundz. 208— 09.
® Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten, 367.
’ P . O xy. 2, 294, 17 and 28 (22). The officialis is m entioned in P .
O xy. 14, 1646 (268— 9).
® P . O xy. 14, 1637, 10 (257— 59) and note on line 10; P . O xy. 14,
1~22 (late third or early fourth century).
" S O U , 1, 13, 3 (289).
Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten, 390— 91; P . O xy. 8, 1121 (295);
P S I , 7, 807 (280); P . Lond. 3, 1187, verso, p. 109 (246).
14 The Officials Responsible to the Prefect
If dQxurrQdrmQ is correctly read in an inscription honoring Tiberius
Claudius Agrippa, we have evidence of the existence of an official
who acted as the stablemaster of the prefect, and who was respon­
sible for the provision of mounts (for the prefect and his retinue ?)h
In P. Oxy. 17, 2116 (229) we find a superintendent of the
prefect’s boats mentioned.
All the officials of the highly organized government of Egypt
were subordinate in various degrees to the prefect, from the idio-
logus and the other members of the equestrian order sent out
from Rome with semi-independent jurisdiction and the epistrategus,
down through the strategus and the nome officials to the holder
of the lowest form of liturgy. The prefect, in turn, linked them
all to the emperor, to whom alone he was responsible.
1 Fr. Schehl, E in agxiarQdrcoQ des Praefectus A egypti, Valerius Eu-
daem on. Jahresh. d. Osterr. Arch. In st. 24 (1929), 9.5__106.
CHAPTER III
THE PR E FE C T A ND THE L IT U R G IE S
During the first two centuries the prefect had httle direct con­
nection with the liturgies. They were one of the chief concerns of
the epistrategus, one of whose functions it was to draiv the lots
for the holders of hturgies from hsts of qualified persons sent in
by the elders or by the scribe of the village. The hsts passed through
the office of the strategus to the epistrategus, who chose by lot
and made the appointment. Appeals for exemption were regularly
sent to the epistrategus who dealt with them in accordance with
the rules governing exemptions laid down by the emperors and
prefects 1. Petitions addressed to the prefect in matters of liturgies
were referred to the epistrategus for investigation
While in the early period of the empire the epistrategus drew
by lot the lower grades of fiscal officials, as for example, the
πράκτορες άργνρικών και σιτικών, διέρασεις δημοσίου πόρου his
connection with the assignment of metropohtan liturgies is not
fully established. Our material for this period is rather scanty
and does not permit us to make final statements.
In P. Oxy. 1, 54 (201) we find that the caretakers entrusted with
the renovation of the Baths of Hadrian were nominated by a vote
of the Council of Archons and their names were passed in by the
scribe of the metropolis. Our text does not state to whom the
list of nominations was passed in, but W ilck en is, no doubt,
correct in saying that it could only have been the strategus®. The
strategus, however, Λvas hardly the last resort in this instance but
rather only a means of transmission to a higher official. To whom
did the strategus pass on these names for final appointment ?
The answer is apparently given in P. Amh. 64 (107). We have
here copies of two official documents relating to the public baths
1 Martin, Les Épistratèges, U f f .; W ilcken, Grundz. 347.
“ B G U , 1, 256 (under Antoninus P ius); P . O xy. 17, 2131, 19 (207).
^ W ilcken, Grundz. 346.
 16 The Prefect and the Liturgies
of Hermopolis. The first reports a decision of the prefect Vibius
Maximus indicating the manner in which the costs of renovating
the baths were to be met. The second document has to do, as in
the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, Λvith “caretakers of the baths.”’ One
of the appointees to that office had complained to the prefect
that his colleagues were inefficient, and incapable of doing their
duties. The prefect Sulpicius Similis wrote back to the strategus
of the nome directing him to forward to the prefect’s office a new
list of persons qualified to hold the liturgy. Whether the prefect
made the appointments by drawing lots from the names sub­
mitted or merely confirmed the appointment of the nominated
individuals is not indicated. There is nothing to show that this
is an exceptional case, and it is, therefore, likely that the prefect
had charge of the appointment to metropolitan liturgies at this
time.
The tendency of the development was for the prefect to encroach
more and more upon the functions of the epistrategus in the assign­
ment of liturgies. At the beginning of the third century a definite
change took place in the procedure that had been followed until
that time. In that period the prefect took over the drawing of
lots for the πράκτορες uQyvQiHwv, one of the common liturgies pre­
viously under the charge of the epistrategus. At the expiration
of the term of office of a certain collector, we find that the comarch
of Nilopolis and Socnopaeus Nesus sent in the names of two persons
of satisfactory property qualifications and otherwise suitable for
the office to the strategus “to be sent for the drawing of lots”
to the prefect Subatianus Aquila. As M artin remarks we have
here the same procedure as in the analogous documents of the
preceding centuries with the single exception that the prefect has
replaced the epistrategus in the drawing of the lotsh In the follow­
ing texts we find that nominations for liturgical offices were
submitted to the prefect for approval: BOU 159, 256, 372; CPR 20;
P. Oxy. 1, 40. On the other hand we find that the epistrategus
drew the lot to determine which district was to furnish candidates
for certain duties in P. Oxy. 17, 2131 (207).
In the further development in the course of the third century
the formality of sending the names of the nominees for the lower
liturgical offices to the prefect for the drawing of lots and the
1 P . Land. 3, 1220, p. 114 (202— 207); c/. Martin, Les Epistrateges 121
but also P . Oraux, 2, a petition of six poll-tax collectors addressed to the
prefect, Ti. Claudius Balbillus (56) who declare that owing to the depopu­
lation of their vdlages th ey fear they will have προλιπεΐν την πρακτοοείαν.
The Prefect and the Liturgies 17
appointment was dispensed with. The prefect in any event did
little more than supervise the drawing of the lots which was carried
out in a purely mechanical way. When candidates became scarce,
only sufficient names to fill the offices were submitted to the
strategus who, as the prefect’s direct representative in fiscal
matters, confirmed them in office by pubhcly posting their names
The prefect, no doubt, had ultimate supervision of the appoint­
ment of individuals to municipal magistracies although we have
no direct evidence for this. One of the municipal offices that was
most difficult to fill was that of eutheniarch. It was his duty,
it seems, to assume responsibility for the appearance of an adequate
supply of foodstuffs in the city markets 2 . The first mention of
this office known up until this time is found in a document of the
year 198 and the latest occurrence is apparently 293®. The office
of eutheniarch in Alexandria (there seem to have been several
eutheniarchs serving concurrently) was of some importance, since
we find it named after the office of cosmete and before that of
βουλευτής in an enumeration of titles^.
The office is not attested for the first half of the second century
and was revived by an unknown prefect, perhaps Valerius Pompei-
anus, about 288—295®. In that period the prytanis of Oxyrhyn­
chus petitioned the prefect to send instructions to the strategus
about filhng the office of eutheniarch. Three eutheniarchs were
required annually, but only two had been nominated by the board
of gymnasiarchs, who were evidently responsible under the super­
vision of the strategus for the nominations to this office. The
strategus, in turn, acted on behalf of the prefect®.
The mode of appointment to the office of agoranomus was
somewhat different as we learn from P. Oxy. 14, 1642 (289). The
prefect directed the holder of the office to nominate his successor.
The individual thus nominated appealed to the prefect for a
withdrawal of his name. The answer of the prefect is unclear, but
he seems to have referred the matter to a subordinate official
for ultimate settlement, probably, according to G ren fell and
H u n t, to the strategus.
There is evidence that the prytanis was appointed by the prefect,
perhaps as O ertel suggests, with the cooperation of the local
1 P . Flor. 2, 34 (265); cf. Martin, 1. c.
“ W ilcken, Orundz. 365^— 68; Jouguet, Vie M unicipale, 324— 27; c/.
P. 39.
“ P . L eipz. 4, 9 (293). — * P- Perl. Leihgabe, 23, 5 (252).
® P . O xy. 14, 1642 intr. — ® P . O xy. 10, 1252 verso col. II (288— 95).
l i e i n m u t l i , T h e P re fe c t of E g y p t 2
18 The Prefect and the Liturgies
counciP. A prytanis addressing the prefect said of himself, “I
myself, my lord prefect, having been recently appointed by your
propitious right hand to the prytanis of Oxyrhynchiis . .
For the relation of the prefect to the other municipal officials,
gymnasiarch, exegete, cosmete, agoranomus and archiereus, our
documents give us no information. Generally speaking their
nomination in the third century was the business of the Council
of Archons, while the strategus confirmed the appointment and
inaugurated them into office. The prefect apparently had only
a general administrative competence over them^.
1. Exemption from Liturgies
As the load of taxation increased and the prosperity of the
country declined, the burden of the liturgies became more and
more irksome. Various administrative measures were promulgated
by the prefects to regulate the imposition of these burdens.
Exemptions were provided for certain classes by rescripts of the
emperors.
A rescript, very probably issued by Septimius Severus and Cara-
calla, provided that a man appointed to a liturgy might be excused
by ceding his property to the individual who made the nomination.
The latter was to manage the estate and defray the expenses of
the liturgy from the income of the property. The man to whom
the rescript was addressed had offered to cede his property to the
fiscus but the offer was refused on the ground that the government
did not administer such estates. The emperor assured the one
making the appeal that his civil status would not be affected
and that he would not be subject to corporal punishment because
of the cession^.
In another case a citizen of Hermopolis, who had recently
completed a term as cosmete and had almost exhausted his pro­
perty in meeting the expenses of that office, appealed to the pre­
fect against the nomination of his son to the same office and at
the same time offered the cession of his property. The prefect
agreed to the offer and instructed the strategus not to take any
steps involving the citizenship or person of the petitioner, Hermo-
1 Oertel, D ie Liturgie, 344. — 2 p ^o, 1252 verso, 18ff.
^ Oertel, op. cit. 371, 372; P . Achm im 7, a list of names for municipal
liturgies proposed b y the com ogramm ateus, but no suggestion to whom
it was to be presented.
* Cf. a similar rescript of Severus and Caracalla concerning ceasio
borwrum, B O V , 1, 473.
Exemption from Liturgies 19
philus. The council, however, refused to accept the proposal
and directed the arrest of Hermophilus in order to compel him
to act as financial guarantor for his son’s acceptable performance
of the office. Hermophilus then offered the prytanis, who had
probably nominated his son in the first place, the whole of his
property without the reservation of the “customary third,” if
he should free him from responsibility in connection with the
office. This reference to a legal provision by which, in lieu of
performing a liturgy, a cession of two-thirds of the nominee’s
property was to be used for the expenses of the liturgy and one-
third was to be reserved for the use of the owner, is clearly at­
tested only in this document
A threat of property cession and recourse to the prefect for
release from his duties as eutheniarch was made by a certain
Nilus in a trial before the strategus. The senate of Oxyrhynchus
through its syndic acted as prosecutor^.
From these texts it appears that escape from certain onerous
liturgies was provided by the cession of all or of two-thirds of the
income of one’s estate to the individual making the nomination,
who would then administer the property and carry on the hturgy
with the income therefrom. A cession of property was not possible
before an appeal had been made to the prefect and he had given
his consent to the proposed transaction.
In an edict of the year 194 the prefect laid down the principle
that a man could not he drawn for liturgical duties elsewhere
than in his own village, that is in the place where he had his resi­
dence®. From the earlier exemption granted in 69 by Julius
Alexander to the Alexandrians who lived in the country, W ilck en
concludes that incolae were liable to liturgies wherever they owned
land*.
Another edict or official ruling apparently sought to prevent
men of senatorial income, whose names had not yet been
included in the album, from evading the responsibility of holding
liturgies®.
^ C P R , 1, 20 (250). In his com m entary on this docum ent M itteis
has collected all th e evidence available on ceasio bonorum; cf. A bbott
and Johnson, M u n icip a l A dm inistration, 556— 57. P . O xy. 12, 1418
(247), although for th e m ost part unclear, seems to pertain a reference
to a two-thirds, one-third division of incom e in connection w ith the
gym nasiarchy.
^ P . O xy. 12, 1417 (early fourth century).
^ BG U , 1, 15, col, I (194). — * W ilcken, Qrundz. 344.
® Van H oesen and Johnson, J E A , 12 (1926), 116— 19. W ilcken dates
this document in the fourth century.
2«
20 The Prefect and the Liturgies
Rutilius Lupus (113—117) sought to lighten the burden of the
office of gymnasiarch by issuing a prefectural edict commanding
he reduction of the expenses of that office “in order that those
appointed might more readily bear the expense^.”
A similar provision was made in connection with the gymna-
siarchy about 150 years later by the prefect Valerius Firmus.
While the details are obscure, the expression, δρου τοϋ δο&έντος
νπό τοϋ μεγέ·&ονς τής ·ήγ\εμονίαι^, in the application of Aurelius
Pasion for rehef in connection with the gymnasiarchy of his young
son, seems to point to a limitation in the expenses of that office
made by the prefect
An edict of Marcus Aurehus regulating certain abuses in con­
nection with voluntary candidacy is referred to in P. Eyl. 77,
41—45 (192). The interpretation of the very condensed passage
is not absolutely certain owing to the use of the word έπιλόγχονς
whose meaning here is not definitely known. J o h n so n explains
the word as meaning supernumeraries of an honorary character,
who share the expenses of office with the working members of
the board^.
Exemptions from liturgies were granted in certain cases^.
Old age and sickness were advanced as reasons for claiming release
from bearing hturgies in P. Flor. 3, 312, an appeal addressed to
the prefect, which is particularly interesting because of its early
date, the year 91. In an appeal made to the prefect M. Aedinius
Julianus by a citizen of Hermopolis, no less than six rescripts
of Septimius Severus and Caracalla were cited granting freedom
from liturgies to men who had reached the age of seventy years
and over®. Three of these rescripts were addressed to individuals,
and of the remainder, one was most probably couched in general
terms. In the case of the citizen of Hermopolis there could be
no question of his age, since he had appended to his request the
certification of his enrolment as an ephebe by the prefect Titus
Flavius Titianus in the year 166. Since enrolment in the body
of the ephebes took place at the age of 14 in Egypt, the petitioner
had reached the age of 70 in the year 222/223. Nevertheless he
added a number of other reasons why the prefect should grant
his request. He was a citizen of Alexandria and had possession
of land in Hermopolis. With the income from this property he*
1 P . Am h. 2, 70 (114— 17). — 2 P . O xy. 12, 1418, 6 (247).
® A bbott and Johnson, M u nicipal A dm inistration, 533— 35.
* W ilcken, Grundz. 344— 45.
® P . Flor. 3, 382 (223— 25), a reprinting of P . Flor. 1, 57.
Exemption from Liturgies 21
and his sons had carried many liturgies. His health was poor
and his eyesight was failing. The detailed recital of these additional
reasons for granting the requested release is a clear indication
that exemption was granted by considering each case individually
and only after application had been made for that privilege, and
that although it was a practise generally followed by the prefects
to exempt men past 70 years of age, they did not automatically
receive the coveted immunity^.
A much mutilated papyrus preserves for us an edict of Diocle­
tian granting an indulgence to those over 60 years of age^. By
lowering the age limit for carrying liturgies, Diocletian sought
to soften the rigors of the liturgical system. The exact nature
of the grant cannot be precisely determined but from the mention
of πράκτορες and έπίστα&μοι it may reasonably be conjectured
to have been freedom from serving as tax collectors and freedom
from the obligation of quartering officials and soldiers.
Women were not required to undertake the cultivation of state
lands®. The edict of Juhus Alexander forbade compulsion in the
leasing of public lands^. A woman cited this edict as “forbidding
women to be made cultivators” although there is no statement
to that effect in the edict extant®. She quoted in addition the
decision of the prefect Valerius Eudaemon and of an epistrategus
to the same effect. P. Teb. 2, 327, 21 ff. (late second century)
refers to edicts that forbade the conscription of women for certain
liturgies.
The prefect Sulpicius Simihs released one of two brothers from
work as a cultivator of public lands on the condition that a sub­
stitute be found®.
The priests of Socnopaeus were granted release from the com­
pulsory cultivation of state lands by an edict of Lusius Geta'^.
An exemption for their slaves on the basis of an edict of an unknown
prefect was claimed by certain priests of a λογιμόν Ιερόν. Their
request was not addressed to the prefect since they asked that
their desires be made known to him®. It may have been addressed
to the idiologus in his capacity of high priest.
^ P S I , 10, 1103 (second century) in which a m an over seven ty years
old asks for relief alleging th a t his eyes are weak. Cf. BQ U , 194.
2 P . O xy. 6, 889 (300— 305).
^ B O V , 2, 648 (164 or 196); W ilcken, Grundz. 321, 322.
^ D itt. 0 0 1 8 , 669, 10. — ® P - O xy. 6, 899, 28 (200).
“ P . Am h. 65 (early second century). — ’ D itt. 0 0 1 8 , 664, 10.
« B O V , 1, 176, 4 and 5 (117— 37).
22 The Prefect and the Liturgies Exemption from Liturgies 23

Veterans had certain claims to exemption from liturgical service. right was confirmed by his successors and carefully maintained
A veteran appealed to an edict which granted freedom from by the prefects as well as by the epistrategi^.
liturgies for a period of five years after dismissal from the army^. The prefect Domitius Honoratus decided by his subscriptio
He complained that two years after his discharge he Λvas drawn to a petition that clerks in the bureaucratic offices were not liable
into liturgies and that he had served for six years continuously to liturgies^.
since that time. Wilcken has pointed out (Chrest. 396, intr.) that A petitioner asked the prefect for relief from munera corporalia
the petitioner was emphasizing, not his claim to a five year’s and the care of visiting officials but the mutilated papyrus does
vacatio, but rather his continuous and long service in liturgical not give us the basis of his claim®.
offices, which even in the case of natives was a basis for exemption. Appeal against the imposition of a liturgy was in principle to
This petition was probably addressed to the prefect as is definitely be made to the prefect who might delegate the investigation to
known to be true of BGU 1, 256 (time of Antoninus Pius) in the epistrategus, the official, who throughout the period seems
which a veteran appeals for release from the office of collector to have been closely associated with the supervision of the
of taxes. liturgies**.
By a rescript of Gallienus, Aelius Asclepiades, a descendant of
1 P . O xy. 8, 1119, 16— 18 (254); B O U , 4, 1022 (196).
a famous athlete was granted immunity from πορειών \κα\1 αρχών ^ P . O xy. 1, 62, recto (c. 222). — ^ P S I , 6, 685 (fourth century).
και [λειτουργιών άπασών^. Several things should be noted con­ * A . J. B oye, L’editio opinionis et l’appel en m atière de
cerning this grant. In the first place, it was made to an individual. charges liturgiques. S tu di Bonfante 4, 183— 202.
It was obtained through the good offices of a famous citizen of
Hermopolis directly from the emperor. The grant was trans­
mitted with great formality through the office of the prefect
Juvenius Genialis to the senate of Hermopolis. Genialis wrote
a letter to the senate, in which he on his part ordered the pro­
visions of the rescript to be carried out and maintained. The
exemption covered requisitions, offices, and all liturgies. It is
clear that we are dealing here, not Λvith a general grant to all
athletes but a particular privilege given to one individual. We
cannot at present speak of a general exemption of victorious
athletes before the year 390, the date assigned to P. Leipz. 66
in which a man is excused from a liturgy “as an athlete.”
Physicians received exemption from liturgies upon appHcation
to the prefect®.
In his edict Julius Alexander promised that he would not compel
citizens of Alexandria to undertake λειτονργίαι χωρικαΡ.
By a grant from Hadrian the inhabitants of Antinoopolis were
freed from all offices and liturgies outside of their own city. This

^ BO U , 1, 180 (second or third century).

2 CP H erm . 119, verso, 3, 267.
® P . F a y. 106 (140). In P . O xy. 1, 40 (late second or early third century)
we find this prefect challenging a physician claim ing im m unity, “Tell
me w hat is the solvent for m um m ification and you shall have the im m unity
which you claim .”
^ D itt. OOIS, 669, 31— 34.

CHAPTER IV
A D M IN IST R A T IV E FU N C T IO N S
Before taking up the categories of the major administrative
duties, it may be of value to consider in a general way the pre­
fect’s contact with the multifarious administrative problems with
which he dealt.
Except in the collection of taxes in which, as we shall see, the
prefect dealt directly with the strategus, he controlled questions
of administration affecting the strategi through the epistrategi.
How an administrative order was passed down through the various
grades of officials is shown by P. Oxy, 9, 1191 (280). The prefect
Hadrianus Sallustius directed that when administrators were
appointed by the local senates, the signature of the secretary
was to be appended. The order was transmitted to the epistrategi
who in turn passed it on to the strategi of the several nomes.
The strategi finally sent it to the secretaries of the senates. Con­
versely we find the epistrategi requesting reports from the strategi
under them concerning the apportionment of requisitions among
the villages for the forthcoming visit of Severus and Caracalla,
and concerning the disbursement of the money advanced them
from the fiscus for the same purpose^. An order addressed to the
strategi and the royal scribes of several nomes, which contained
a letter addressed to the strategus of the Tanite nome reprimanding
him for peculation, emanated from Plautus Italus, very probably
an epistrategus. The same order forbade the diversion of imperial
tax monies to the salaries of the revenue officers of the nome^.
The strategi, on their part, demanded of their subordinates the
fulfillment of certain duties under threat of punishment at the
hands of the prefect. One strategus demanded that the toparch
prepare for him a supplementary classified statement of the tax
payments which had been made up to that time ; another directed
1 P S I , 6, 683 (199— 204).
“ AVilcken, Arch. 7 (1924), 84; P . O xy. 3, 474 (184 ?).
Administrative Functions 25
the eirenarchs of the nome to send a person to the prefect in order
that he might discharge a duty which the prefect had laid upon
him^.
The prefect usually employed a letter in communicating an
administrative order Such letters apparently established an
administrative norm and were of interest not merely to the par­
ticular strategus or other official to whom they were addressed
but to the other strategi as well. We find a reference to several
packets of letters that were sent by one official, perhaps a strategus,
to another strategus, apparently that he might copy them as a
guide to administrative action. From the language of the text
this seems to have been a common practise®. All these letters
dealt with administrative matters and for the most part with
matters of taxation. Several are definitely mentioned as coming
from the prefect. The collection contained letters concerning a
decree issued to the sitologi, the collection of grain owing from
a certain individual, petitions, the search for a pilot who had
disappeared, certain statements of the idiologus, and a list of
sums of money which were owing to the strategus of Hermopolis.
The strategi kept the prefect informed concerning the state of
affairs in their nomes. The strategus of the Oxyrhynchite nome
reported the disorganized condition which existed because the
official abstracts in the property record office were not properly
kept. This report resulted in an edict by the prefect Mettius Rufus
which regulated the keeping of such records^.
Complaint was made by the strategus of Coptus to the prefect
Avidius Heliodorus that the Romans, citizens of Alexandria,
and the veterans engaged in public service in the nome refused
to heed him and made the collection of taxes difficult by their
insubordination®. He further stated that these individuals main­
tained that they were not under his jurisdiction and were not to
be placed upon the same footing as the native collectors. The
Romans and Alexandrians here mentioned were, no doubt, as
1 P . Teh. 2, 289 (23); P . O xy. 17, 2107 (262).
2 P . Flor. 3, 382, 91— 94 (232— 35); P . O xy. 12, 1470 (336); BQ U ,
1, 19 (135) was addressed to the basilicogram m ateus, who was acting
strategus; BG U , 4, 1086 (160 or 183 or 215); S B , 4, 7378 (19. May, 103)
in which Minicius Italu s directs in a letter the erection of a βιβλιο&ήκη
iyy.Tyaeow in place of th e old office.
® P . B y l. 2, 78 (157); line 17, διεπεμψάμην κατά το ε&ος; line 26, κατά
τά κελευσ^έντα.
^ Ρ . O xy. 2, 237, col. V III 27— 43. The edict is dated in the year 89.
O/. Arch. 5 (1913) 246.
= BO O , 3, 747 (30. Mar. 139).
26 Administrative Functions
Wilcken explains, men who had undertaken as a litu rg y the collec­
tion of different kinds of taxes in districts where they Ład holdings
of landi. Since the strategus was commonly a nativ-e Egyptian,
the Romans and Alexandrians would be inclined t o treat him
with disdain and flout any supervision from him. T lie strategus
wished to know what steps to take in order to safeg-xiard the in­
terests of the treasury. In a subscriptio the prefect directed that
the recalcitrant collectors be brought before the epistrategus
who would compel them to do their duty.
1. Finance
The prefects exercised a more or less close supervision over the
finances of the towns and made inquiry regarding th_eir financial
status in much the same way as Cicero and Pliny d id in the pro­
vinces which they governed. A systematic audit of t h e accounts
of the nomes was made, as we shall see, at the tim e of the con-
ventus. The approval of the prefect was also sou ght in matters
involving outlays of larger sums of money. In the y-ear 306 the
prefect Clodius Culcianus gave his authorization for t h e payment
of a sum of money for the repair of the baths at Oxyrhynchus^.
The prefect Minicius Italus directed the strategi of t h e Arsinoite
to erect a new record office at a site determined by an imperial
procurator and specified the amount to be expended in rebuilding®.
2. Public Lands
Public lands were sometimes ceded or sold to p rivate individuals
by the prefect. The prefect C. Turranius (7—4 B. C.) granted
an allotment of land from the possessions of Augustus by means
of an edict to C. Julius Theon, an archiereus, who m a d e this allot­
ment over to the temple of Isis^. Two pieces of unwa tered wheat
land upon apphcation of the prospective purchaser w ere sold at
a price fixed by the prefect Julius Vestinus and u n d er certain
stipulations regarding the taxes to be paid on them·^.
3. Colonization
If a restoration of lines 24 and 25 of P. Oxy. 4, 705 (202) made
by W ilck en is correct, there is a reference in this docum ent to
^ W ilcken, Chrest. 35, intr.
^ P . O xy. 8, 1104 (306). — s S B , 4, 7378 (19. May, 103 J.
P . O xy. 12, 1434, 9— 15 (107/8).
® P . Am h. 68 verso (late first century).
Currency Boundaries Temples and Temple Property 27
3, new settlement of colonists made at Oxyrhynchus under the
direction of the prefect T. Flavius Titianus, who held office from
]26 to 132^. We know that in another case a colony of citizens
was drafted from Ptolemais, the metropolis of the Thinite nome,
for settlement in Antinoopolis. This colonization was perhaps
ordered by Hadrian and carried out by the prefect. Not only the
colonists, who settled at Antinoopolis from Ptolemais, but their
parents left behind in the Tliinite nome were exempted from
liturgies outside of their place of residence. The perfect Petronius
yiamertinus directed the strategus of the Thinite nome as did
the epistrategus some years later, to see that the relatives of the
colonists in the nome were not molested®.
4. Currency
One of the administrative duties of the prefect that came more
imperative as successive emperors debased the currency so that
each issue was of less real value than the preceding one, was to
see to it that the debased coin was accepted, and that no restraint
in circulation ensued. A proclamation of a strategus recorded
in P. Oxy. 12, 1411 (260) ordered the banks to remain open and
exchange all coin but the counterfeit under threat of the punish­
ment that the prefects had prescribed in similar cases before®.
Every one was, no doubt, anxious to keep as much of the old and
more valuable coin as possible.
5, Boundaries
A decision of the prefect Sulpicius Similis regarding the fixing
of a boundary stone was carried out by the commander of a squa­
dron of cavalry*.
6. Temples and Temple Property
Under Augustus, and perhaps under his immediate successors
as well, the management of the temples and the lands in cormection
With them, as also the supervision of the priesthood, was lodged
m the hands of the prefect. Since as the emperor’s representative
he took over the functions of the Ptolemaic kings in matters of
^ W ilcken, Chrest. 153. — " W iloken, op. cit. 26.
Cf. Fr. Ileiohelheim , Zur W ährungskrisis des römischen Imperiums
3. Jahrh. n. Ohr. K lio , 26 (1932), 96— 113.
“ S B , 1, 3919 (111).
 28 Administrative Functions
religion, no doubt, as well as in matters of government, it seems
very likely, although we have no definite evidence for it, that
he had Jurisdiction in cult matters as well. It has been noted
that the prefect took the king’s place in certain ancient rehgious
ceremonies and was subject to the same taboo as the king with
regard to saihng on the Nile while it was in flood. In the middle
of the second century when the idiologus took over these func­
tions, we find that in his capacity as archiereus he had compe­
tence not merely over the administrative and financial affairs
of the temples and the priests, but over purely religious matters
as well!.
How long the prefects had charge of these matters before the
creation of a separate departement to take care of them, cannot
at this time be definitely ascertained. The first “high priest of
Alexandria and all Egypt” who is known was C. Julius Vestinus
(possibly the son of the prefect of the same name, 59—61) in the
time of Hadrian^. In that very same period, from the year 122/3
at least {BGU, 1, 250 W ilck en , Ohrcst. 87) the idiologus carried
out all the functions of the archiereus. W ilck en has proved that
the idiologus combined the functions of archiereus with his other
duties, a fact which has been confirmed by many texts discovered
since®. It is a significant fact for the understanding of the em­
perors’ policy regarding Egypt that the entire administration
of religious matters was placed in the hands of an official whose
principal duties were of a financial nature. The chief interest
of the government was doubtless the administration of the priest­
hood and the temple lands in such a way that the revenues of the
state should suffer no harm.
There is no reason for thinking that the office of archiereus
existed as an independent office and that there was a combination
of two separate departments of the government when the idiologus
is found fulfilling the functions of archiereus in 122/3. Several
considerations make it much more likely that the office of arch­
iereus was created at that time and his sphere of jurisdiction
placed under the control of the idiologus. As O tto has pointed
out, the fact that JuKus Vestinus was referred to as archiereus
alone does not exclude the possibility that he was at the same
time also idiologus«. On the contrary he adduces a number of
cogent reasons whj^ it is probable that Vestinus was also idiologus
1 O tto, P riester und Tem pel, 62— 63; W ilcken, Grundz. 121 126
2 Prosop. Im p . Rom. 2, 219, 408. — ^ W ilcken, Hermes 23 (1888) 60ff
^ O tto, op. cit. 66 ff. ’ « O tto, op. cit. 2, 368, note 1.
Tenaples and Temple Property 29
and that in this first mention of the office of archiereus we find
it already combined with that of the idiologus.
There is no evidence for the separate office of archiereus, or
for the combination of that office with another in the first century
of the Christian era. In the reference to the idiologi found in the
texts until the time of BGU, 1, 250 in the year 122/3 there is no
indication that they exercised administrative functions over
priests and temples, or in cult matters, except as such admini­
strative matters came before them in their proper capacity^.
On the positive side it can be shown that the prefect was in
charge of matters pertaining to the priesthood and the temples
well past the middle of the first century and perhaps even as
late as the year 104®. In a private letter of that date addressed
to a pastophorus of Isis, one of the lower order of priests, from
a friend in Alexandria the statement was made, “I am sending
you the actual proclamation of the prefect in order that you
may hasten to do what concerns you.” Evidently the order of
the prefect had something to do with the priestly office of the
person to whom the letter was addressed, and his friend, perhaps
another priest, was giving him advance information which would
be available in Alexandria before it was known elsewhere. After
the year 104 we have no further indication of an administrative
connection of the prefect with the temples and the priests.
That the temple lands were in many, if not in all instances
confiscated by Augustus and converted into state lands is indi­
cated in a document of the year 71/2®. The priests petitioned
the prefect against an increase in rent of 200 artabae of barley
on 500«/^ arourae or against dispossession which had been threa­
tened by the village scribe. The priests in their appeal stated
that the land in question had been turned into state land by Pe-
tronius (almost certainly C. Petronius, the prefect in 25—21 B. C.)
and that since that time they had cultivated the land in place
of a subvention from the state«. Instead of the syntaxis these
priests received the revenues from the lands that had formerly
« W essely, Spec. isag. 8, no. 11; c/. W ilcken, Arch. 1 (1901), 558;
O tto, op. cit. 62, note 2, 67, 173. T exts of the first century containing
a reference to the idiologus are, — P . O xy. 4, 721, 3; 9, 1188, 4, 9, 10,
13, 15, 16, 19, 20; D itt. OGIS 669, 38; P . Lond. 276 a p. 148; 355,
p. 176; S B , 5240, 14, 23; c/. on the idiologus in general, Meyer,
Festschrift zu Hirschfeld, 131 ff. and Plaum aim E E .
® P . O xy. 9, 1155 (104).
» P . Teh. 302 (71/72); cf. P . O xy. 4, 721 (13/14).
 30 Administrative Functions
belonged to the temples but which were now the property of the
state. For the protection of their rights they appealed to the
prefect. That he handled the matter precisely similar to other
questions that came to him for settlement, is indicated by the
statement of the priests that the epistrategus had reserved the
right to the cultivation of these lands by a judicial decision
against some bastard claimants.
We do not know who the “god and lord Asclepiades” was to
whom a certain priest addressed a petition asking for the restora­
tion to his temple of the syntaxis, which in his absence had not
been received. There is no evidence for recognizing in him an
archiereus^. S ch u bart in his note referring to Asclepiades says.
Er ist jedenfalls ein höherer Staatsbeamter. In BGÜ, 4, 1201 1
we have a priest addressed as “god and lord” as was Asclepiades.
He was perhaps the same priest who directed a petition to the
prefect C. Turranius regarding the payment of taxes^ In the appeal
to Asclepiades, it was stated that the priests of other villages
had in similar circumstances appealed to the prefect and had
received the syntaxis. The prefect was clearly acting in his ovm
capacity in making the grant of the syntaxis.
The prefect P. Octavius (2/1 B. C.—3 A. D.) was petitioned
for the return of certain subsidies to which the priests of a village
were entitled in return for the confiscation of their lands, and
which had been wrongfully diverted by the sitolog.■Î3.
From the same set of temple records, from the temple of Busiris.
we have a petition addressed to C. Turranius referred to above··.
The priests complained against the exaction by the basilicogram-
mateus of the λαογραφία and the χωματικόν in money. A certain
number of priests connected with each temple were exempt from
the payment of the λαογραφία^. The tax for the priests over
and above the quota who enjoyed exemption was paid by the
temple to which they belonged. The individuals who came under
the privileged class were apparently determined by the several
temples. Whether these provisions were already effective at the
early period of our text (5—4 B. C.) may be doubted. C. Turra­
nius issued an order, which was certainly general in its application,
in which he commanded a registration of the priests, the pasto-
phori, the families of the priests, their slaves, and any others
in the service of the various temples. The purpose of this action
• BG U , 4, 1197 (5/4 B. C.). — 2 b q x j ^ 4 ^ n 9 8 (5/4 B . C.).
» BG U 4, 1200 (6). — * BG U , 1. c.
s W ilcken, Ostr. 1, 241— 42; Otto, op. cit. 2, 62— 63, 246 ff.
Temples and Temple Property 31
was that Turranius might examine and at once άπο [. · . ]
(Schubart, Sinn: scheide aus, streiche aus o. dgl.) revise the roster
of those connected with the temples. The reason advanced for the
order was that there tvere μη Ικανούς . . . [τάς λ]ιτρυργίας παρα­
δεχόμενους^. Here we have an edict that was apparently the
curtailment of a general privilege. The priests, pastophori, and
ail those comiected with the temple were to be enrolled for the
definite purpose of making an examination of, and excluding
those not of the priesthood.
In a papyrus dated by its editors in the very next year (3/2 B. C.)
we have a list of 173 priests, perhaps of a larger temple in Busiris,
arranged in five phylae^. Since this register was a part of the
temple records and made no mention of the pastophori or the
attendants of the temple we must not identify it with a return
made in accordance with the edict of Turranius above, but rather
recognize in it the official list of priests, designated by Turranius
as a result of his examination of the roster of those connected
with the temple, who were entitled to exemption from poll tax.
In addition to the registration of the priestly classes which
was perhaps thereafter made annually, the government demanded
a return of all temple property. These two reports were usually
combined. They were ordered by the prefect, later by the idiologus,
and were submitted to the office of the individual issuing the
order through the usual channels®. In P. Oxy. 8, 1143 (c. 1) there
is a reference to the prefect in an account of payments made
by the priests of a temple and doubtless a part of their report
for that year. These records formed the basis for the close system
of control exercised by the Roman government in Egypt over
the priests in the interests of its revenues. Contrary to -what
might be expected, the priests were subject to numerous taxes
and enjoyed no privileged position except for the exemption of
a limited number of priests of each temple from the poll tax, and
the exemption from the liturgical duty of cultivating state lands
granted by the edict of the prefect Lusius Geta already noticed.
Of particular interest is P. Ryl. 2, 110 (259) which contains
a return of temple property addressed to the archiprophetes of
Alexandria and made by a priest “at the command of Gessius
• BG U , 4, 1199 (4 B. C.).
2 BG U , 4, 1196 (c. 3/2 B. C.). Of. Otto, op. cit. 2, 23— 24.
® W ilcken, Grundz. 128. W ilcken gives references to lists of this kind,
to which should be added, P . R y l. 2, 110 (259); BG U 4, 1023 (185) con­
tains a γραφή &εαγών καί τών iv τφ Ιερφ άποκειμένων; cf. O tto, op. cit. 2,
152, note 2. On these lists see M ontevecehi, A egyptus 12 (1932), 317— 28.
 32 Administrative Functions
Serenus, the archiereus, and the prefect Mussius Aemilianus.”
At this period the idiologus had taken over the supervision of
the temples and hence Gessius Serenus takes precedence over the
prefect in issuing an edict similar to the edict of C. Turranius
promulgated at an earlier date upon his authority alone.
Apparently then matters concerning the temples and the priests
were under the charge of the prefect until the end of the first
half of the second century and very probably until a reorgani­
zation of the administration under Hadrian created the office
of archiereus and placed the functions of that office in the hands
of the idiologus.
The prefects issued edicts concerning the priesthood, executed
the confiscation and the reorganization of temple lands, and were
appealed to by the priests for redress. The reasons why the ad­
ministration of religious affairs was transferred from the prefect
to the archiereus we may be sure had nothing to do with an at­
tempt to curb the growing power of the prefect, as Otto suggests,
nor was the transfer made möglichst bald^. The most direct as
well as the most characteristically Roman method of curbing the
power of the prefect would have been to take the military com­
mand from the prefect and put it into the hands of another, as
was done in Syria under Nero, but for another reason, when the
civil administration was committed to Cestius and the military
authority assigned to Corbulo^. The fact that Gallus was depicted
by the priests of Philae, perhaps under his orders, on that part
of the stele reserved by Egyptian custom for the king, is altogether
consistent with what we know about the prefect’s position in
®gypt) as representing in his person, the emperor’s succession
to the prerogatives of the king, and would not have aroused
suspicion at home that Gallus was playing into the hands oft he
priests in order to win over their influence to his support against
the emperor, as O tto surmises.
7. Emigration
Since each individual was considered a present and potential
source of revenue, and since the prefect was responsible for the
raising of taxes, it was natural that he should grant permission
to enter and leave the country®. The frontiers of Egypt were care­
fully guarded and entrance to, or exit from the country was almost
1 O tto, op. cit. 2, 6 8 ff. — 2 Tac. A n n. 15, 25.
3 Cf. Strabo, 2, 101; Lumbroso, Bull. Soc. Arch. 21 (1925), 30__31.
Emigration Foundations and Benefactions 33
impossible without the knowledge of the authorities. The proce­
dure necessary to leave the country demanded in the first place
an application to the prefect for his permission. He endorsed
the application and sent it to the procurator at the port of depar­
ture who exercised the functions of emigration inspector as well
as collector of customs. An application to leave the country by
way of Pharos together with the endorsement of the prefect is
still preserved for us^. A passport, no doubt, issued directly
to the person concerned was also necessary. Legal action
against those who had left the country without a passport was
in the hands of the prefect®. The penalty for such an offense in
the case of a native of the country was one-third (of his proper­
ty?). For Romans the penalty was apparently not definitely
established but was evidently heavy since one Roman who at­
tempted to depart without a passport was fined at least a talent.
The penalty for smuggling slaves varied from confiscation of all,
to a fourth of the offender’s property and slaves who left the
country without the knowledge of their masters were subject
to sale when apprehended®.
8. Foundations and Benefactions
The scope of the prefect’s powers with reference to foundations
and benefactions is not clearly known. Benefactions that were
intended to be maintained for a longer period of time were appa- ;
rently referred to the emperor for approval. A certain Aurelius j
Horion applied to the emperors Severus and Caracalla, perhaps
directly at the time of their visit in 199/200, for permission to
set aside 10,000 Attic drachmas, the income of which was to be
used for prizes to be awarded in the contests of the ephebes of
Oxyrhynchus^. He asked their approval also for a plan to aid j
the holders of liturgies in certain villages where he had possessions j
of land. He adduced many reasons why the requests should be j
granted among others the loyalty of Oxyrhjmchus to the emperors,
its importance as a metropolis, and appealed to the favorable
opinion held of the town by the prefect Q. Maecius Laetus. It
is probable that the emperors turned to the prefect for a report
on the project and that his endorsement played some part in the
eventual granting of the request.
1 P . O xy. 10, 1271 (246). — ^ BG U , 5, 64. — BG U , 5, 66, 68, 67, 65.
* P . O xy. 4, 105 (202); W iloken, d ire st. 153; idem. Arch. 3 (1906),
3 12f.; cf. M ittels, Röm. Privatrecht, 384.
K einm ath, T h e P refect of K gypt 3
 34 Administrative Functions
In P. Oxy. 17, 2132 (c. 250) we have a petition sent to the prefect
Appius Sabinus which, it seems, made a somewhat analogous
request. Owing to the loss of a part of the papyrus, the meaning
is not absolutely clear, but it appears that the permission of the
prefect was desired to make a benefaction for the purpose of a
festival in honor of Antinous. The prefect’s subscriptio indicates
that the permission was granted provided that the interests of
the treasury were safeguarded. Although our evidence is too
scanty to permit of definiteness, it seems very likely that foun­
dations which did not create a precedent and which were of a
temporary nature, and did not involve large sums of money, were
under the jurisdiction of the prefect without recourse to the em­
peror.
9. Weights and Measures
Official weights were stamped with the regnal year followed by
“in the prefecture of (giving the name of the prefect) i”. Similar
datings are found on the government Nilometers used to mark
the level of the r i v e r ì In BGU 3, (157/8 or 180/1) reference is
made to the fact that in export documents, τα γενήματα Λvere
reckoned πρός γνώμονα of the prefect.
10. Natural Resources
The prefect’s permission was necessary in order to secure and
to transport stone®.
11. Provisioning of Alexandria
Adequate supplies of grain, pork, and wine for the public mar­
kets of Alexandria were provided by the order of the prefect
directing the sale of these commodities είς την ενϋηνίαν of the
city^. The prefect perhaps at the same time set the price for these
products even as was done by the Roman government in Sicily
in the case of frumentum imperatum or the decumanum alterum,
and by the prefect himself in the case of the annona civica and the
requisition of supplies for military purposes (c/. p. 80). The actual
administration was in the hands of officials oi έπΙ τής εν&ενίας*
» Cagnat, IG R R , I Z I i (59/60); ibid. 1379 (59/60).
^ L. Borchart, Nilm esser und Nilstandsm arken. Abh. pr. A h. (1906).
® W essely, lu s lapides transportandi (third century). S tu d i Bonfante
17 18; K . Fitzler, Steinbrücke und Bergwerke im ptolem aischen und
römischen Ä gypten. Leipziger Historische Abhandlungen, 21 (1910).
* P S I , 10, 1123 (152); c/. W ilcken, Arch. 10 (1932), 252.
Provisioning of Alexandria Alexandrians 35
or eutheniarchs. W ilck en rightfully applies the words of the edict
of Julius Alexander 1. 46, to the evdevia of Alexandria rather than
to the annona civica, and refers in this connection to the exemption
of the dealers in pork from Caracalla’s order directing all Egyptians
to leave Alexandria®. These men were dealers who normally resided
in Alexandria but made trips throughout Egypt, buying food
supplies under government direction and supervision, and perhaps
also at prices set by the prefect. We may see in the provisioning
of Alexandria by the prefects, many of whom had been praefecti
annonae immediately prior to assuming the prefecture of Egypt,
a continuation of a royal function carried out by the Ptolemies,
who laid down by decree how many arourae in each nome must
be devoted to the production of oil for sale in Alexandria, which,
as W ilck en suggests, we may infer to be an example of the
system followed out in the case of other foodstuffs®.
12. Alexandrians
The problems of government were increased by the fact that the
population of Egypt was made up of different races. The inhabi­
tants of Egypt fell into rather clearly marked groups. The native
Egyptians constituted the group lowest in the social scale. They
were engaged principally in agriculture and in the trades. The
ruling class under the Ptolemies, the Macedonians and the Greeks
generally, came next. The Romans in Egypt formed the ad­
ministrative personnel and the army. Others settled in Alexandria
and other parts of Egypt as merchants, bankers, and property
holders®. Altogether apart from the classes in Egypt proper were
two other groups in the city of Alexandria which constituted one
of the gravest administrative problems, — the citizens of Alexandria
and the Jews®.
The people of Alexandria were a cantankerous and seditious
group, jealous of their honors and their prerogatives. They were
inordinately proud of their city, which was the seat of the prefect
® W ilcken, Orundz. 367.
- Ibid. 364— 65; W . Kunkel, Arch. 8 (1927), 212— 15, a royal decree
of th e year 79 B. C. providing that w heat and legumes from the region
above Memphis are n ot to be exported to the D elta or Upper E g3rpt,
but are to be brought to Alexandria. The penalty for transgression is
death and the informer is promised a third of the offender’s property.
^ V. Martin, Propriétaires romains en E gypte sous l’Empire. M èi.
Olotz, 551— 55.
* Bell, Juden und Griechen; Schubart, D ie Griechen in Aegypten.
3»
36 Administrative Functions
and the other high officials. Alexandria was one of the three places
where the prefect held his annual conventus. It was the gateway
of Egypt to the Mediterranean world and the commerce of Egypt
passed through their city.
The citizens of Alexandria possessed many advantages over the
native Egyptians^. Citizenship in Alexandria was the necessary
prerequisite for obtaining the civitas Eomana'^. The prefect was
empowered to bring action against grants of citizenship to those
who were not eligible^. The prefect Julius Alexander in his edict
guaranteed the citizens of Alexandria the enjoyment of certain
time-honored privileges. Following the dispensation of the em­
perors, he promised to preserve the rule that no citizen of Alexandria
should be inducted into a λειτουργία χωρική. He affirmed, too,
that the lands contiguous to Alexandria, the “ancient tract”
in Menelaites and certain other lands which had been added to
the above mentioned districts would be permitted to enjoy their
“ancient privilege*.”
In P. Par. 68, col. I l l recto B, 21—24, containing a pronounce­
ment of a prefect whose name is not known, there is a reference
to the slaves of the Alexandrians, but the papyrus is so mutilated
that further details cannot be ascertained®.
13. Jews^
The total number of Jews in Egypt is given by Philo as no less
than a million^. While the largest number was to be found in
Alexandria, there was a strong representation in the larger towns
also, notably at Antinoe and Oxyrhynchus®. The Jewish synagogue
in Oxyrhynchus is attested to have paid fourteen talents of silver
Jos. contra A pion . 2, 3— 5. — 2 g— 7
® J5GU, 5, 40. — * D itt. OGIS, 669, 31— 34, 59.
® W ilcken, Abh. Sachs. Ges. W iss. 27 (1909), 818.
® From the volum inous literature on the Jew s in E gypt, I cite the
following treatm ents: Jean Juster, Les J u ifs dans Vempire romain, leur
condition iuridique, economique et sociale. 2 vols. Paris, 1914; Aldo Neppi
Modona, La V ita pubblica e privata degli Ebrei in E gitto nell’età elle­
nistica e romana. A egyptus 2 (1921), 253— 75 and ihid. 3 (1922), 19— 43;
L. Fuchs, D ie Juden Ä gyptens. Vienna, 1924. W . M. Flinders Petrie,
The S tatus of the Jew s in E gypt. F ifth Arthur D avis Memorial Lecture!
London, 1922; E . Cohen, Les J u ifs d'É gypte au temps de Vére chrétienne.
A ix en Provence, 1927. — ’ Philo, in Place. 43.
« Cf. Schürer, Gesch. d. Ju d. 3, 46ff., for papyri referring to Jew s;
W ilcken, Zum Alexandrinischen A ntisem itism us, Abh. Sachs. Ges W iss’
27 (1909), 728ff.
I
Jews 37
for the manumission of a Jewish female slave with her two young
children*.
W ilck en has shown that the Jews in Alexandria did not as
such possess the right of citizenship in the city®. Philo relates
that the prefect Avilius Flaccus called the Jews “foreigners and
aliens” in an edict which he issued and that he gave them no
opportunity of defending themselves against that charge®. In
Alexandria the Jew’s formed a separate civic organization or
πολίτευμα as did the Greeks, each employing its own laws and
courts*. The Jews in Alexandria were residents of Alexandria
but not πολιται of the city, as is clearly indicated by the draft of
a petition addressed to the prefect C. Turranius (7—4 B. C.) in
which the petitioner referred to himself first as Άλεξανδρεύς then
crossed this out and w’rote Ιουδαίος των από ’Αλεξάνδρειάς. The
father enjoyed Alexandrian citizenship which he must have received
before the birth of his son®.
Frequent factional quarrels arose between the Alexandrians and
tlie Jews in the city. It was necessary for the prefect to issue an
edict commanding the Jews to live among the peoples of Alexandria
(following W ilc k e n ’s interpretation) and not to remain in the
ghetto in order to prevent them from engaging in war against the
city of Alexandria as they had done before®. The common inter­
pretation of this passage makes it a command to live in the ghetto,
an order which would have been unnecessary since the Jews al­
ready lived in a segregated district.
The sympathies of the prefects were, in the majority of cases,
not with the Jew’s. In a trial before an emperor, perhaps Hadrian,
the Jews accused the prefect M. Rutilius Lupus of issuing an
order directing their “king” to be led forth in a procession and
to be mocked upon the stage and in mimic representations'^. In
the same trial the statement was made that letters sent by Jews
to the emperor were suppressed, doubtless by the prefect, since
it was only through him that communication could be had with
the emperor®.
1 P . O xy. 9, 1205 (291). — ® W ilcken, Grundz. 63.
2 Philo, in Place. 54; cf. ibid. 171— 72.
* M. Engers, Ilohirevfia. M nem osyne, N . S. 54 (1926), 154— 61; E. R.
Goodenough, The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in E gypt. N ew
H aven, 1929.
® BG U , 4, 1140 (33).
^ P. P ar. 68, col. V I verso 6, 13— 15; W ilcken, Abh. Sachs. Ges. W iss.
27 (1909), 8 1 8 .’
’ W ilcken, op. cit. 809; cf. also P hilo’s treatise in Place.
“ P . P ar. 68, col. V I verso, 13— 15; W ilcken, op. cit. 818.
 38 Administrative Functions
In the year 115 a dangerous and widespread rebellion of the
Jews against the Roman government broke out. The prefect was
unable to cope with the situation and the uprising was not fully
put down until Marcius Turbo was sent to Egypt at the b e g in n in g
of the reign of Hadrianh The broils occurring in Alexandria at
this time resulted in the trial before the emperor Hadrian to which
reference has been made, and which is recorded in the Acts of the
Martyrs. W ilck en holds that the body of literature which grew
up in Alexandria as a result of the persecution of the Jews, the
socalled Acts of the Martyrs, is a reworking of the original records
for political and apologetical purposes^.
The revolt of the Jews left a deep impression upon the country,
and there are numerous echoes of the event in the papyri^. It
was during this period that a strategus requested the prefect for
a leave of absence to attend to his personal affairs in another
nome*. In the course of the revolt, the native Egyptian population
was armed under the command of the strategi of the nomes®.
Eighty years after the rebellion had been subdued, Oxyrhynchus
celebrated the victory over the Jews*.
14. Leasing of Taxes
The leasing of certain taxes for collection was in the hands of
the strategus and the basilicogrammateus as the agents of the
prefect^. The prefect set the price to be paid by the tax farmers.
At times contractors could not be found to accept the lease at
the amount set by the prefect. In such cases, they were either
compelled to contract for the taxes at the set price or an adjust­
ment was made in the amount required for the lease. JuUus
Alexander forbade compulsory leasing, which he called contrary
to the common practise of the prefects*. In one case the prefect
^ W ilcken, Qrundz. 64ff.
- W ilcken, Ahh. Sachs. Ges. W iss. 27 (1909), 818ff.; A. N eppi Modona
considers the pagan A cts of the Martyrs patriotic literature, RaccoUa
Lumhroso, 407, 438; A. von Premerstein, Zu den sogenannten Alexan-
drinischen Märtyrerakten. P hil. Supplbd. 16 (1923), H eft 11; W oldemar
Graf U xkull-G yllenband, E in neues Bruchstück aus den sogenannten
heidnischen Märtyrerakten. Sitzb. pr. A k. (1930), 664__79.
^ P . Giss. 24; 27; P . O xy. 4, 705. — ^ P . Giss. 41 (117— 20).
“ W ilcken, Chrest. 16; idem, Ahh. Sachs. Ges. W iss. 27 (1909), 794— 95
® P . O xy. 4, 705, 34.
’ P . O xy. 1, 44 (late finst century); cf. P . Bonriant 13 (98); W ilcken
Grundz. 218; Tait, J E A , 8 (1922), 166ff
• D itt. OGIS, 669, 11 and 14. ’
Leasing OÎ Taxes Leasing of Public Lands Transportation of Grain 39
directed the strategus, who had complained that he could not
persuade the contractors to lease certain taxes at the figure of
the preceding years, to examine the previous contracts for the
possibility of lightening the conditions of the contract^.
15. Leasing of Public Lands
The prefects were appealed to for relief in the leasing of the
public lands, δημοσία εδάψη^. Under the guise of a lease, government
lands were often assigned to colonists and heavy rents, έκφόρια,
were exacted. The conditions of the lease, the amount of the
rental, and the nature of the cultivation could be changed by the
government each year, but the tenant was not permitted any
latitude in such matters and was often compelled to take up the
lease again against his will. If, however, at the time of the renewal
of the contract a higher bid was made by someone else, the lease
holder was evicted. Hadrian issued an edict which provided for
a reduction κατ αξίαν on the leasing of government lands*.
16. Transportation of Grain
The transport of grain, the taxes in kind, and the produce of
the imperial estates, from the granaries to Alexandria for the grain
supply of that city^ and its shipment to Rome and other parts
of the empire, were under the supervision of the prefect. The
prefect Aemilius Saturninus in a letter reprimanded the strategi
for their negligence in the supervision of the public donkey drivers
who were shirking their duties in the transportation of state grain®.
At the date of this order ονηλασία and other services in con­
nection with the transport of grain were liturgical, Λvhich accounts
for the fact that a petition from a man who had been appointed
to superintend the loading of wheat ships was addressed to the
epistrategus«, although in the administrative order above men-
^ P . O xy. 1, 44 (late first century).
- P . Jand. 53 (c. 96— 98); c/. W ilcken, Grundz. 288— 96.
“ Jouguet, Eev. ét. grec. 32 (1920), 374ff. ; W esterm ann, J E A , 11 (1925),
165ff.
* D itt. OGIS, 669, 45— 46.
° BG U , 1, 15, col. I I (11- Jul. 197 ?); Oertel, D ie Liturgie, 118 wrongly
refers to this’ docum ent as “EpistrategenerlaB.” For Aem ilius Saturninus
as prefect, c/. Milne, H ist, of E g yp t, 59; R ostow zew , Arch. 3 (1906),
’ 201— 24.
* P . Teh. 2, 328 (191/2).
40 Administrative Functions

tioned, the prefect addressed the strategi directly. There is a mention

of the epistrategi in connection with the loading of grain ships in
P. A.tnh. 137 (288/9) but the exact nature of the connection cannot
be clearly determined. In the same document, 11, 16ff. there is
an order by the prefect Valerius Pompeianus addressed to the
strategi directly, ordering them to appoint officials to care for the
embarkation of grain. Certain directions of the prefect Sempronius
Liberalis (154—158/9) were mentioned in a document dealing with
the unloading of a boat, perhaps a grain boat^.
CHAPTKK V
1 B G V , 3, 904 (161/2 ?).
THE SYSTEM OF RECO RDS

The varied business of the prefect’s office was very largely

carried on by correspondence. The prefect was informed upon
all matters that pertained to the government by detailed reports
prepared for his inspection. He was able to pass on to Rome
recommendations based upon an intimate and exact knowledge
of conditions in Egypt. There were reports in connection with the
assessment of taxes, — census and property registrations, birth
registrations, episcepsis and epicrisis reports, enrolment records
pertaining to the ephebes, reports from subordinates regarding
revenue returns. There were numerous petitions to be read, and
to be cared for by endorsement or by delegation to a subordinate
official, routine official correspondence, the preparation and publi­
cation of administrative orders and edicts. A large army of se­
cretaries, copyists, hbrarians, and auditors was necessary to care
for the preparation of outgoing documents and the reception, filing,
and production upon call, of incoming documents^.
Egyptian formality delighted in the documentation of every kind
of transaction. No better illustration can be given than that of a basi-
licogrammateus who had become acting strategus, and wEo, in his
capacity as strategus, writes to himself as basihcogrammateus with
great punctihousness, to exercise care in sending the monthly
reports pertaining to the grain supply for Rome^.

1. Officials in Charge of the Records

The reports that formed the basis for the assessment of taxes
will be taken up later. It is our concern here to deal with the
record office of the prefect and its administration. It was called

1 Philo, In Place. 1. — ^ P . S trass. 31, 32 (194).

 42 The System of Records
βιβλιοθήκη and was, as we have seen, in charge of a βιβλιοφύλαξ
with many subordinate clerks, including the προαιρέται who looked
up and brought out any document desired. The last named officials
also went about the country to the various local archives and
collected the documents that were to be lodged in the central
archives at Patrica in Alexandria h
The records on file in the office of the prefect, as well as in
other offices, were made accessible to other officials and to the
public at a small fee. Copies were made at the expense of the
individual by νομογράφοι who apparently were not officials^.
2. Kinds of Documents
The kinds of documents, other than those forming the basis of
the tax assessments for which see pp. 67 ff., which were filed in
the record office of the prefect, are clearly indicated in P. Hamb.
1, 18 (222). In it we have recorded the transfer of 11 συνκολλήσιμα,
collections of similar documents made by pasting the separate
documents together, perhaps from the office of the prefect, although
this is not definitely stated, to the central archives. These rolls
consisted of original petitions sent through the office of the prefect
to the emperor. They contained the subscriptio of the latter to­
gether with the original letters which had been sent to the prefect
attached to the petitions. The rolls also included documents the
nature of which cannot be ascertained because the papyrus is ille­
gible at this point, but which were perhaps νπομνηματισμοί, or court
records^; and επισταλματα, copies of administrative orders, as well
as instructions sent by the prefect to his subordinates.
The petitions which are preserved in the papyri are, for the most
part, copies of the originals that had been pasted together and
filed away in the office of the person to whom they had been
addressed. They Avere arranged alphabetically, either by place
of origin, or by the name of the petitioner, or by content, and were
provided with a cross index, and glued into rolls. The rolls, τενχεα
or τόμοι or συνκολλήσιμα were in turn numbered and filed«. Like
P. Ryl. 2, 114 (c. 280), some petitions still bear the annotations
^ 1 . L eipz. 123 (136); c/. P . Hamb. 18; Schubart, Arch. 5 (1913) 70.
P . O xy. 14, 1654 (150 53), a record of notarial expense “for the
memoranda of Munatius F elix ” (Munatius was prefect 150— 51).
υ.τ:ο/ίϊ’?//ίατα of E gyptian officials see W ileken, P hil. 53 (18941
109ff. See Boak, P . M ich. II, Intr. to the kinds of docum ents in the
second office and the m ethod of conducting this office.
20 ' m 4 (1908), 431; c/. P . Thead. 18,
20, 19, 22— 23 (third or fourth century).
Kinds of Documents 43
of the page and volume number where they might have been found.
When the authenticity of the copy was of importance, the copyist
or attendant whose task this was, noted that the copy had been
made from the original and had been compared with the original«.
Court records were kept of all trials held both by the prefect
and by the judges delegated by him. Such records were known
as νπομνηματισμοί (the term was also applied to petitions) and
preserved the evidence of the witnesses, their examination by the
judge, the speeches of the lawyers, and the decision of the judge
The records were made by an official court reporter. In one case
the judge directed that a copy of his decision be prepared for the
parties involved®. From these court records collections were some­
times made of cases dealing with the same subject and giving the
decisions made by different judges. Collections, for example, of
decisions upon the longi temporis praescriptio*, and upon the
legality of marriages contracted by soldiers®.
In addition to the four general categories of documents, many
others were to be found in the files of the prefect. A rescript of
Severus Alexander addressed to the κοινόν of the Greeks in
Bithynia was incorporated in the files of Annianus the prefect
(241), because it contained a general command to all procurators
and governors to permit an appeal to the emperor®. Copies of
documents of this nature, rescripts and letters of emperors, edicts
of their predecessors as well as their own, were filed away in the
office of the prefect«.
The prefect directed that records of various transactions should
be made. The prefect T. Flavius Titianus (164—167) in an edict
commanded that the custom of registering contracts already in
vogue in the Arsinoite and Hermopolite nomes should be followed
generally®. For filing in the local record office copyists w^ere to
« BG U , 2, 525 (176— 180), εκ τεύχους βιβλειδίων of Titus Pactum eius
Magnus, the prefect; cf. P . Flor. 3, 312 (91).
- P S I , 4, 281 (second century); BG U , 2, 613 (Antoninus P iu s?);
B G U , 4, 1085, col. I l l 23 (170/1).
^ C P R , 1, 18, 34— 37 (124). — « P S I , 4, 281 (second century).
® BG U 1, 114 continued by P . Cattaoui 1 recto (second century): see
te x t b y Grenfell and H unt and com m entary b y Meyer Arch. 3 (1906),
57ff.; P . O xy. 17, 2112 is a summ ary list of cases which had come before
a conventus w ith the decisions rendered in each. The collection of an
overdue loan m ay be involved in all of the cases.
« P . O xy. 17, 2104, 19— 21 ^241 ?).
’ Cf. the forgery of the instrum enta of the prefects under Septim ius
Severus, Marciana, D ig. 48, 10, 1, 4.
« P . O xy. 1, 34, verso (127).
 44 The System of Records

make a short description of each, noting the names of the parties,

the nature of the contract, the number and the volume in which
the contract was to be found, and a synopsis of the contents.
A statement of any erasure or insertion in the original document
was to be included. The local record office was to send the original
and one copy of each of these contracts and other private docu­
ments of a legal nature to the central record offices, the original
to be filed in the newly constructed Library of Hadrian, the copy,
in the Nanaeum. To these record offices, the local finance board
was to transmit an official report of its revenue returns. The CHAPTEE VI
registration of all documents from the office of the archidicastes
Avas to be made in the same way every five days. THE E D IC T S !
The procurator in charge of the Nanaeum was forbidden to 1. Names Applied to the Edict
permit the removal or copying of documents filed the rewithout
the consent of the procurator in charge of the Library of Hadrian. The prefect enjoyed the ius edicendi. In distinction from
The edict closed with a command to all the people to register the old royal decrees Avhich were variously called πρόσταγμα, πρό­
their documents in both libraries. The purpose of the edict Avas γραμμα, εκ§εμα, παράγγελμα, δόγμα, διάγραμμα, the term διάταγμα
to obtain greater security for the documents and to prevent useless was used as the terminus technicus for the edict of the prefect^.
litigation. In his letter to a strategus directing its publication, Lusius Geta
In an edict of the year 134, M. Petronius Mamertinus amplified referred to his edict as εκ&εμα^ and similarly a copy of an edict
a previous edict in Avhich he directed that receipts be given by of Julius Alexander was called [άντίγραψον] έκΜματοζ^. An
both parties in the case of a payment made to the government, unknown emperor in a letter written in Latin to a higher official
whether payment Avas made in money, kind, or labor i. The pur­ at Alexandria, perhaps the prefect, referred to them as cmistitu-
pose of this provision was again to avoid disputes concerning such tiones^ indicating incidentally that the edict of the prefect had
payments. the same validity for his province as that of the emperor himself.
The prefect Clodius Culcianus required the comarchs to render
him a report of the village accounts, evidently in the interests 2. Form and Language
of the collection of taxes^. In another case the prefect called for
The form of the edict was as distinctive from the royal decree
the original receipts given to the bakers for bread delivered to
as Avas the name. FolleAving the full name of the prefect, came
naval and military detachments^. The strategus acted as the
the title έπαρχος ΑΙγνπτον (edicts prior to that of Mettius Hufus
agent of the prefect in securing these reports. All non-residents of
of the year 89, simply have the name without the title) and λέγει.
Alexandria were directed to register Avdth the commander of a
This form Avas strange to the Egyptians and Avas distinctively
military detachment and obtain his signature for presentation
Roman pointing to an original orol proclamation®. The body of the
to the local officials as evidence of the fact that they had legitimate
edict continued in the first person. The language Avas, of course,
reason for not returning to their place of residence for the census,
always Greek as was also· the language of the imperial rescripts
in accordance Avith the edict of C. Vibius Maximus^.
addressed to private persons and of edicts intended for publication
^ P . P a y . 21 (134). — ^ p . Oxy. 6, 895 (305).
^ See Appendix I I for references to the edicts of the prefects.
^ P . 0x1/. 8, 1115 (284). ~ < p . Lond. 3, p. 125, 30ff. (104).
^ W ilcken, Zu den Edikten. Sav. Z . 42 (1921), 128ff.
D itt. OQIS, 664, 2. — ^ W ilcken, op. cit. 125.
® P . Jand. 68 (second century); c/. Ju st. In st. 1, 2, 6 ; Gaius, In st. 1,
5, constitutio p rin cip is est quod Imperator decreto vet edicto vel epiatula
constituit; U lp. D ig. 1, 4, 1, 1.
® W ilcken, op. cit. 132.
 46 The Edicts
in Egypte while imperial edicts addressed to the army were
written in Latin 2 . The language of the edicts was severe and ri­
gorous, the imperative is used frequently and verbs of commanding,
xsKevo), £7iiHE?.Evco, 7i<xQ(iyyeXKo}^ are common. Penalties are pre­
scribed by using the future indicative and are usually vague and
indefinite®, l o judge from the repetitions of the same commands,
however, the provisions of the edicts were not so rigorously exe­
cuted as they were phrased or else they were frequently violated*.
3. Subject Matter
Edicts other than those of a routine nature, as for example,
those announcing the census, were based on some definite situa­
tion, a complaint, or a question concerning administrative practise,
'âTféference to which was usually made in the first sentence or
in the early part of the edict. Thus the harboring of bandits®,
the wholesale withdrawal from place of residence®, unjust re­
quisitions by the troops'^, petitions of priests against compulsory
cultivation®, general complaints concerning abuses in administra­
tion®, questions concerning the keeping of the records questions
by legal authorities regarding the interpretation of previous edicts
are some of the reasons that led to the issuing of an edict.
4. The Provincial Edict
In addition to the edicta repentina, which concerned more par­
ticularly the native population of Egyt, there was also a provincial
edict for Egypt in the second and third centuries, and perhaps
earlier, issued by the prefect as by the governors of other provin-
* P . O xy. 6, 889 (300); S B , 3, 6944 (137). On the question of the
languages used in the various official docum ents see A. Stein, Unter­
suchungen, 1 5 8 ff.; Bell, Jew s and Christians, 3.
^ W ilcken, Chrest. 462 and 463 applying to veterans.
3 W ilcken, Sav. Z . 42 (1921), 141, note 2; c/. A. Berger, D ie Straj-
klauseln in den Papyrusurkunden. Leipzig und Berlin, 1911.
P . O xy. 1, 34, col. I l l (127). Titianus prom ulgated an edict ordering
the registration of docum ents in the Library of Hadrian and the Nanaeum .
Ju st five m onths later he issued another edict concerning the same m atter
since his former edict had been generally disregarded.
= P . O xy. 12, 1408, 23ff. ~ « BG U , 1, 372, 2.
’ P S I , 5, 446; D itt. 0 0 1 8 , 664; et al. — « H itt. OQIS, 669, 5— 8.
» 1. c. — P . O xy. 2, 237, col. V III 27— 43.
P . O xy. 2, 237, col. V III 21— 23.
The Provincial Edict 47
CCS*. A request for bonorum possessio in a papyrus of the year
249 in the Giessen collection (0. Eger, Sav. Z. 32 (1911), 378—382)
was made in the following language, Eogo, domine, des mihi bo-
norum possessionem . . . ex ea parte edicti, quae legitimis heredibus
bipnorum) p{ossessionem) daturum te polliceris. There can be no
doubt that we have in this document clear evidence for a pro­
vincial edict in accordance with the provisions of wLich the re­
quest was made. In a similar way three other requests for a grant
of bonorum possessio, P. Oxy. 9, 1201 (258), W ilck en ’s restora­
tion of P. Oxy. 1, 35 (223) in Hermes 55 (1920), 32, and PSI, 10,
1101 (271) indicate the existence of a provincial edict. In the first
of the three texts just cited, the prefect’s endorsement reads,
ex edicto: legi which is equivalent to saying that although the
prefect has not examined into the merits of this particular case
he makes the grant solely on the basis of the promise in his edict.
M itteis recognized a definite reference to the praetorian edict
in the letter of Hadrian {BGU, 1, 140) to the prefect Rammius
Martialis in the year 119 concerning the rights of succession en­
joyed by the children of soldiers. The prefect doubtless incor­
porated the pertinent section of the praetorian edict into his own
provincial edict and it was very probably to the latter that the
children of soldiers appealed when they made a request for their
privilege of succession unde cognati.
The edict of Julius Alexander is unique among the edicts of
the prefects extant in that it deals with a diversity of questions
while all others treat of a single snbject®. W ilck en has suggested
a plausible explanation®. He thinks that the prefect worked out
this elaborate document when Nero’s affairs were tottering. By
giving an outline of what might be expected under the reign of
Galba (the name of any other successful candidate for the prin-
cipate could readily have been inserted, had events turned out
differently) to rectify the various matters concerning which com­
plaints had been made, Alexander strengthened his own position
both with the inhabitants of Egypt and with the incoming emperor.
The edict was directed especially to the citizens of Alexandria,
thinks W ilck en , and was probably intended to keep them from
1 O. Eger, Sav. Z . 32 (1911), 378ff. (249); W ilcken, Sav. Z. 42 (1921),
135ff.; Meyer, J u r. P a p . 27; P . O xy. 9, 1201 (258); P . O xy. 1, 35 (223);
c/. W ilcken, Hermes 55 (1920), 3 2 f .; BG U , 1, 140, 25; W ilcken, Hermes
39 (1902), 84ff. ; W . W . Buckland, L ’Edictum Provinciale, Bevue Historique
de D roit français et étranger 13 (1934) 81— 96. — ^ D itt. OOIS, 669. —
^ W ilcken, Sav. Z . 42 (1921), 1 4 4 ff.; c/. the elaboration of m y inter­
pretation ì n T A P A 65 (1934), The E d ict of Tiberius Alexander.
 48 The Edicts
becoming restless by assuring them that their rights would not
be infringed upon nor their privileges curtailed under the new
regime^.
While this interpretation has many things to recommend it,
it is not entirely convincing. The change of emperors at Rome
did not greatly affect Alexandria, and Egypt scarcely at all. Only
infrequently did a prefect of Egypt hold office under two emperors.
Usually the incoming emperor, at once, or after a short period
placed a close friend or a trusted follower in this key position,
as did Trajan who permitted M. Junius Rufus who had been pre­
fect under Domitian and Nerva to remain in office from the death
of Nerva on 25. Jan. 98 until 21. June 98, during a part of which
time Trajan was absent on the Rhine, but shortly thereafter
replaced him by his close friend, C. Pompeius Planta^. It was
not very likely, then, that Alexander had much to expect in the
way of favors from the new emperor by making glowing promises
for the new regime.
I should like to suggest that the edict of Ti. Julius Alexander
most closely resembles what we should expect the provincial
edict of the prefect of Egypt to be. It is different from other
extant prefectural edicts in treating of a variety of questions
all of them of general concern, not only to the people of Alexandria,
but of Egypt as well. Some of the provisions which we should
expect to find in such an edict as for example, the legal rate of
interest, the use of native or Greek law in deciding controversies
at law, — questions that Cicero treated in his edict, may well
have been laid down in the gnomon of the idiologus which was
modified from time to time by the emperors, the prefects, and
others®. The general introduction of the edict πάσαν προνοίαν
ποιούμενος τοϋ διαμένειν τφ προσήκοντι καταστήματι την πόλιν άπο-
λανουσαν των ευεργεσιών ας εχει παρά των Σεβαστών καΐ τοϋ την
Αίγυπτον εν ενστα·&εία διάγονσαν ενϋνμως νπερετεΐν τήι τε εύϋηνία
και τήι μεγίστηι τών νυν καιρών ευδαιμονία μη βαρυνομένην καιναΐς
και αδικοις εισπραζεσι, 11. 3 and 4; the prefect’s inclusive promise,
προέγραιρα άναγκαίως περί έκαστον τών έπιζητουμένων, δσα εξεστί
μοι κρεινειν και ποιεΐν, τα δε μείζονα και δεόμενα τής τοϋ αύτο-
κράτορος δυνάμεως και μεγαλειότητας αϋτώι δηλώσω, 11. 8, 9;
his outline of what his policy would be in various essential
matters, the induction of men as tax collectors, and cultivators
of state lands with violence and against their wills 1. 10; the
^ Cf. R ostow zew , Kolonat, 85f.
^ Plin. E p . 10, 7 and 10; see list of prefects. A ppendix I.
“ Cio. ad. A lt. 5, 21, 11; 6, 1, 15.
The Provincial Edict 49
imprisonment for debt, 11. 16 and 17; the misuse of πρωτοπραξία
11. 19ff. the dowries of foreign women, 1. 25; exemption from
taxes, and new taxes, 11. 27—30; the induction of Alexandrians
into liturgies in the χώρα 11. 33 and 34; the appointment of strategi,
1. 35; the introduction into his court of matters already passed
upon by previous prefects, 11. 36 and 37; the emendation of the
gnomon of the idiologus to exclude all innovations contrary to
the dispensations of the emperors, 1. 44; new taxes charged against
property by the eclogistae, 11. 48—55; the collection of taxes
based on the average rise of the Nile rather than the actual current
rise, 11. 55 and 56; the remeasurement of certain ancient tracts
near Alexandria, 11. 60 and 61;—all of these point strongly
in this direction. The prefect is expressing his attitude and de­
fining his course of action regarding the outstanding questions of
administration.
These provisions were not new departures in administration
but, as was true of the praetor’s edict generally, a restatement
of well-known standards. Thus Ti. Julius Alexander apphes
to the eclogistae and to tax suits generally the old principle of
Roman law, bis de eadem re ne sit actio^ (Gains 4, 108) to which
reference is made in a petition directed to the prefect Turranius,
τών νόμων κωλνόντων δίς περ[ί το]ϋ α[ΰτ]οΰ [κρίν]εσ'&αι^, a prin­
ciple which was doubtless regularly reaffirmed in the prefectural
edictum translaticum.
If we compare Alexander’s edict with the outline Cicero gave
Atticus of the subjects which he treated in his Cilician edict we
cannot but be struck with the similarity in the administrative
matters with which they deal. Cicero included in his edict sections
concerning accounts of the municipalities, debts, contracts, the
collection of taxes, inheritances, the ownership and sale of pro­
perty, the appointment of receivers, the use of Greek law for
Greek litigants, the legal rate of interest, and regulations concerning
the publicani. He published the edict under two separate heads
and left altogether unwritten a third division concerning the
remaining departments of judicial business®. Julius Alexander
included many of the same subjects as Cicero, and we may safely
assume that like Cicero he omitted certain other matters, since
provincial governors apparently exercised the greatest freedom
both in borrowing from the provincial edicts of other governors
^ G. Comil, U ne conjecture sur I’origine de la m axim e “bis de eadem
re ne sit actio” . S tu d i Bonfante 3 (1929), 35— 38.
® P . Land. 2, 17, p. 165. — “ Cic. ad A lt. 6, 1, 15.
R e i D m u t l i , The P re fe c t of E g y p t 4.
 50 The Edicts
and in dropping provisions that were considered a stock part of
the edict.
Since the prefect s term of office was of uncertain duration
and for the most part short, and since many administrative prac­
tises were permanently established by the emperors, it seems un­
likely that each prefect should issue an edictum translaticum upon
entering office, as did Julius Alexander, if indeed his edict is of
this kind. The principal purpose of such an edict was to announce
the prefect’s attitude toward the financial administration, —
the imposition and collection of revenues and the problems con­
nected therewith. When Alexander in 1 . 4 9 says, εϊ τινα καινως
τήι έγγιστα πενταετία τα μη πρότερον τελούμενα καϋολικώς . . .
κατεκριΰη, ταντα {κελεύω tVa} εις την προτέραν τάξιν άποκατα-
στήσωσιν, he seems to point to a renewal of the tax sche­
dule every five years just as in Cicero’s time agreements for the
payment of taxes collected by the publicani were made on a five
year basis. In the absence of definite evidence to the contrary,
one may assume that the prefect in announcing the new tax
schedule also issued therewith an edict announcing the attitude
of the government with reference to the administrative problems
involved in the program of taxation. The importance of Alexander’s
edict in confirming certain norms of just practise, is indicated
by the fact that it was inscribed upon stone.
•5. Publication
Publication of an edict consisted in displaying it in a public
I place for a period of time. The prefect addressed a letter to the
; strategi of the various nome directing them to publish the edict
.which accompanied his letter Ϊ.'· This letter together with an intro­
ductory statement of the strategus, was posted with the edict
in the following order,—statement of the strategus, letter of the
prefect to the strategus, edict. Sometimes the letter of the prefect
contained, in addition to the directions for publication, an ad­
ministrative order concerning the subject of the edict, as when
Baebius Juncinus exhorted the strategi under threat of punish­
ment to exercise all vigilance against bandits, and at the same
1 time subjoined an edict against giving shelter to bandits^,
i ; At the end of the edict was placed the date,—the year of the
^ W ilcken, Chrest. 13, 3— 4 (34); BOU, 2, 648, 1— 7; D itt. OGIS, 665,
® P . Oxy. 12, 1408, 11— 26 (210— 14).
Publication 51
reigning emperor, the day of the Egyptian month, sometimes
followed by the official προτεϋήτω the imprimatur denoting that
the document W0 ready for publication^.
The strategus might publish the document in two ways,—
1 ) by posting copies of the edict in various places in the metro­
polis, the villages, and the τόποι of the nomes^; and 2 ) by sending
the edict of the prefect, together with his letter to the local offi­
cials, who by signing the document certified that they had made
copies and had posted these copies®. The copies of the edict were
to be written in clear and well-formed letters, and were to be
displayed at once in the metropolis and the several places of the
nome*, for a period of not less than 30 days in one case, and three
months in another®.
In announcing the accession of emperors, and perhaps also
in the case of other routine edicts, the strategus made his own
draft of the announcement on the basis of a notification from
the prefect or made the necessary alterations in a copy of the
edict prepared by the prefect for the people of Alexandria®.
The edict of the prefect was published at Alexandria and at the
same time sent to the various nomes so that publication in the
nomes ordinarily took place later than at Alexandria by a period
of time necessary to travel the distance between the city and the
given nome. Allowance for this interim was made in an edict of
Titianus (P. Oxy. 1, 34, col. II 10— 14) by stipulating that its
provisions were effective in the city on the day of new moon of
the month Pharmouthi (March 27, the edict had been posted in
Alexandria on March 1 ), in the remainder of the country from
new moon of Pachon (April 26) just one month later, which was
approximately the time necessary for transmission to the farthest
place of publication.
Edicts and rescripts of the emperors were posted at Rome,
and then sent to the prefect in Alexandria who had a copy made
^ P . Oxy. 1, 34 verso, col. II 16 (127).
2 D itt. OGIS, 665, 10— 14 (49); c/. P . F a y . 24, 11 (188), a declaration
r*pon oath by a village police officer th a t he had posted a copy of an edict
of Sempronins Liberalis ordering a return to place of residence, in a
certain farm stead. In P . F ay . 20, Severus A lexander ordered copies of
his edict concerning the remission of the aurum coronarium to he posted
in full view in public places.
® W ilcken, Chrest. 13, intr. and 19, intr.
* P . Oxy. 8, 1100 (206); D itt. OGIS, 665, l l f f . (49).
= P . Oxy. 8, 1100, 5; BG V , 1, 372, 18.
® P . Oxy. 7, 1021 (54), and BOU, 2, 646 (193), are announcem ents
of the accession of Nero and Pertinax respectively.
 52 The Edicts
Period of Validity 53
and published in the manner of his edicts In P. Oxy. 12, 1407 issued by him which commanded the exchange of mutual receipts
are fragments of two imperial rescripts one dated at Neapolis
in the case of money payments, to include payments in kind and
( 1 . 8 ) and the other at Rome ( 1 . 16). On their visits to Egypt, the
in labor as welP. In considering the period of their validity, it
emperors published their rescripts at places along their itinerary^. should be remembered, too, that three of the edicts of the prefects
L. Aemdius Rectus, the prefect, caused the letter of Claudius
were assured permanence by being engraved on stone
to the Alexandrians to be read publicly, but later had it displayed The reason for the consistent policy expressed in the edicts
also, since all were not able to be present at the reading^.
of the prefects, who quickly succeeded each other, must be sought
in the fact that the administrative program was determined and
6. Period of Validity guided by Rome. Expressions such as the following in the edict
The edicts of the prefects had validity beyond the term of of Julius Alexander are significant,—“following the mandate
office of the prefect who issued them. W ilck en has collected of the deified Augustus, I command,” “the deified Augustus
the evidence on this points The short term of office that the ma­ commanded,” “as the deified Claudius wrote to (the prefect) Postu-
jority of the prefects held, must in itself have pointed to this mus,” “since they (the prefects) adhered closely to the dispen­
conclusion. But the evidence on this question is clear. In a trial sation of Claudius.”
held about the year 2 0 0 , an edict of Julius Alexander of the year 69
and another of Eudaernon of the year 142 were read as evidence P . F ay. 21 (134). — D itt. OGIS, 665 (48); 664 (54); 669 (68).
that a woman could not be compelled to cultivate public lands.
The judge gave his decision in accordance with these edicts®.
The edicts of emperors and prefects were frequently cited in
court and were accepted as valid regulations«. We find that the
same administrative problem was treated by several prefects
in much the same way. The repetition of the prohibition regarding
requisitions without an order, for example, need not be interpreted
as showing that the earlier edicts had lost their validity but rather
that the circumstances calling forth the original edict had arisen
again. The prefect Vergilius Capito carried over to his edict con­
cerning unlawful requisitions, the exceptions laid down by the
prefect Magius Maximus and he referred to them as well known^.
The prefect Servius Sulpicius Similis (107—112) applied the
provisions of an edict of a predecessor, Mettius Rufus (89/90),
to a case coming under its provisions«. Eudaernon stated that
he was following the precedent of Mamertinus in his edict ®. M. Pe-
tronius Mamertinus extended the provisions of a previous edict
1 <7/. in general on the prom ulgation of docum ents at R om e and publi­
cation in E gyp t P . G w . 1, 40, col. I and the com m entary b y Meyer;
also Meyer Arch. 5 (1913), 426ff.; Wenger, VierteljahrsschriSt f ü r SoziaU-
und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1911, 192— 93; Jouguet, Rev. et. grec. 33(1920),

^ P . Flor. 98 (238); P . Oxy. 12, 1406 (215?).

® B ell, Jews and Christians, 27, 11. i __n .
I W ilcken, Sav. Z. 42 (1921), I40ff. — ^ P .' o x y . 6, 899, 27— 32 (200)

• ? ^® ?·.3“ ’.οΐΓνπίΐ’· ^

CHAPTER V II
THE R E L A T IO N OF THE PR E FE C T
TO THE EM PERO R
It will be of interest to consider next the relation of the prefect
to the emperor. Stated simply this relation may be expressed
by repeating that the prefect was the emperor’s representative.
As the head of a bureaucratic government, with extensive know­
ledge of the conditions existing in the country, the prefect was
in a position to make valuable recommendations to the emperor.
That the emperors availed themselves of this experience is shown
by the fact that Claudius asked the prefect to investigate the
advisability of acceding to the request of the people of Alexandria
for a senate and to make suggestions as to the method of forming
such a body^.
The prefect on his part, if we may judge by the analogy of the
experience of Pliny, as mirrored in the Trajan-Pliny correspondence,
referred many questions concerning his administrative duties to
the emperor. P. Jand. 6 8 (second century) may be considered
an answer to a query of this nature, although it is not absolutely
certain that the prefect was responsible for the question. The
emperor’s decision had been asked with regard to the retention
in the corps of the %eioiarai {cf. Oertel, Die Liturgie, 411 and 417)
of a man who because of financial reverses was in danger of ex­
clusion, A census rating of 30,000 sesterces, or an annual income
of 4,000 sesterces had been established by Hadrian as a prerequisite
to admission into this class. The letter continues, Huius modi
concessiones semper refutatae stmt. Divus Hadrianus rem admitten-
dam non putavit confirmatis praefectorum constitutionibus quibus
etiam hoc adiectum erat cheiristam censum habere, et cetera. It is
worthy of note that the edicts of the prefects are here referred to
as constitutiones, and also that in this instance they were “con­
firmed” by the emperor.
1 D itt. OGIS, 669 (68).
The Relation of the Prefect to the Emperor 55
The emperor might act through the prefect or altogether inde­
pendently of him, in the former case addressing a letter to him
outlining the course of action to be followed but leaving the exe­
cution to him. Thus Caracalla directed the deportation, with
certain exceptions, of all non-residents from Alexandria, in a
document that was ostensibly a letter addressed perhaps to the
acting prefect Aurelius Antinous in 215^. The èv&óòe in line 26
indicates that Caracalla was himself in Alexandria. Hadrian
laid down rulings concerning the rights of succession to which
the children of soldiers were entitled, in a letter to his prefect
Rammius Martialis^ Septimius Severus and Caracalla in two
rescripts concerning in integrum restitutio referred the individuals,
who had appealed to them, to the prefect with the statement
that the prefect would judge their cases in accordance with the
principles laid down in the rescripts^.
On the other hand, Caracalla by an edict regulated the conduct
of senators in the local senates of Egypt, without any reference,
as far as we know, to the prefect^. He felt, no doubt, that his
ordinance was a part of the administrative arrangement of his
father, Septimius Severus, who in 199/200 had instituted senates
in the capitals of the nomes. In general, however, even after
the time of Severus, the affairs of a metropolis were under the
supervision of the prefect acting through the strategus®.
Very interesting in this connection is the high-handed manner
in which Germanicus conducted himself upon the occasion of
his visit to Egypt. He apparently recognized his precarious po­
sition in trespassing against the principle laid down by Augustus
which forbade senators to set foot on Egyptian soil but he never­
theless proceeded as if no such restriction existed. Although
he made certain concessions to conciliate the emperor Tiberius,
he entirely disregarded the prefect®. Without any authority for
his action, he issued an edict laying down regulations regarding
his visit in which he threatened with court action (in the court
1 Meyer, P . Giss, 40, col. II 16ff. (215); R ostowzew , Kolonat, 211;
W ilcken, Arch. 5 (1913), 430. — ^ BGU, 1, 140 (119).
^ P . Oxy. 7, 1020 (198— 200). — ^ P . Oxy. 12, 1406 (213— 17).
® W ilcken, Orundz. 42.
® W ilcken, Arch. 6 (1920), 287. H e apparently did not take his sena­
torial legates w ith him , and did not use th e praetoria of the prefects as
stopping places. H e arranged to purchase the necessary supplies for his
party through Baebius, forbade requisitions, forbade the people to hail
him as a god, on pain on not showing him self often to them ( !). an honor
which, he said, was due the emperor alone. S B , 3924, 35ff.
 56 The Kelation of the Prefect to the Emperor
of the prefect ?) those Avho should speak against his scribe, and
m every Avay conducted himself as if he were the emperor h
Administrative actions applying to the country at large ema­
nated from the emperor and were executed by the prefect. The work
of Augustus, as was to be expected, was of the greatest impor-
tance in this respect. He laid down the principles in accordance
with which the idiologus was to carry on his office^. He sent
written commands to the prefect Magius Maximus for the organi­
zation of a Jewish Council of Elders of 38 members». The intro­
duction into Egypt of the municipal system by Septimius Severus
m 199/200 has already been mentioned. An imperial edict appar­
ently by Severus Alexander remitted the aurum coronarium
m Italy and the provinces«. In Cagnat, lO R R 1291 (297—305)
we have an edict of Diocletian regulating the boundarv between
the territory of Syene and Elephantine. P. Oxy. 6 , ^ 9 , verso,
ISff. (2 0 1 ) is apparently a short imperial rescript bearing upon
the exemption of women from the cultivation of state lands
The emperors granted concessions to individuals and societies
toectly, the prefect serving only as an agent of transmission.
Claudius stated in his letter to the people of Alexandria that he
confirmed all the rights granted them by former principes, kings
and prefects». Athletes were given certain privileges, consisting
in some cases of money grants from the treasury, in others exemp­
tion from offices, liturgies, and requisitions, and in the case of
victors in the sacred games, freedom from the payment of all
taxes . Trajan granted Alexandrian citizenship to Pliny’s physi­
cian and in asking for certain information ut epistulam tibi ad
Pompetum Plantam praefectum Aegypti, amicum meum mittam.
speaks with ceremonial respect of the prefect C
1. Appeals to the Emperor
Appeals to the emperor must have been more common than
IS ordinari y supposed. If W ilck en ’s interpretation is correct.
P Hamb \%, col. II 6 refers to rolls of such petitions which were
filed in the archives of the prefect». They had originally been
‘ Philo, In F la o c . 74.
6 d’ Christians, 24, 11. 57__59.
W i iT’ (138— 61) lines 25— 26; P . Land. 3, 1178 p 215·
century); CPHerm. UQ verso,
w -i I ’ . (275); c/. S B , 5225; Viereok, Klio, 8 (1908) 413— 26
W ilck en ,^ rc^ 4 (1908), 564f.; c/. P . Pe6. 286, 15 (I 2 L 38).
j __42 ^“1“” 7. — » Wiloken, Hermes 55 (1920),
Appeals to the Emperor Imperial Rescripts 57
transmitted by the prefect to the emperor, who answered them
by a subscriptio. A letter of the emperor to the prefect often
accompanied the petition and was pasted to it. The petition
with the imperial letter attached was returned to the prefect for
propositio at Alexandria so that interested parties might make
copies of it«. After the expiration of the period of propositio the
documents were filed in the office of the prefect and eventually
removed to the record office at Patrica. There Avere some matters
that could be decided only by the emperor». Petitions regarding
such matters, as Avell as those Avhich the prefect did not feel
competent to deal Avith himself AA’ere sent to the emperor.
2. Imperial Rescripts
The rescripts of the emperor bore the same relation to the
subscriptiones of the prefects that a laA\r bears to a legal decision.
Both Avere adduced as evidence in trials, but the imperial rescripts
AA^ere considered rules of action, while the prefectural subscriptio
AA'as merely a precedent. The distinction is expressed by the anti­
thesis found in certain documents, al &εΐαι νομοϋεσίαι (or ϋεΖοι
νόμοι) και al ήγεμονικαί κρίσεις^. If it could be shoAvn that
the circumstances of a giA^en case conformed to the provisions
of a rescript, the decision AA^as rendered in accordance Avith that
rescript«.
The right of appeal to the emperor from the decisions of the
prefect, as of the governors of provinces generally, was confirmed
by a rescript addressed to the κοινόν of the Greeks in Bithynia,
a copy of which Avas, no doubt, sent to the prefect Annianus,
since it was filed in his records».
Whether a letter could be sent to the emperor directly without
passing through the office of the prefect cannot be stated definitely.
The prefect Avilius Flaccus failed to transmit a decree Avhich the
JeAvs in Alexandria had passed in honor of Gains. In telling of
this incident, Philo continues by saying that everything that the
prefect sent to the emperor was read by him without delay®.
Meyer has shown that the requests for imperial sanction of two
foundations to be established at Oxyrhynchus in P. Oxy. 4, 705
« The custom of propositio was introduced under Trajan or Hadrian,
perhaps the latter, W ilcken, op. cAt. 19— 20.
2 H itt. OGIS, 669, 64. — ^ P . Oxy. 8, 1119, 18 (254).
« P . 'I'eb. 286 (121— 38), rescripts of Trajan and Hadrian in a trial
concerning the possession of slaA'es.
= P . Oxy. 17, 2104, 19— 20 (241 ?). ^ « Philo, I n Place. 97— 103.
58 The Relation of the Prefect to the Emperor

(199/200) were made while the emperors were in Egypt They

were very probably passed to the emperors directly, and it may
be that direct transmission was equally possible at other times.
The requests just mentioned were in the form of letters and not
in the form of petitions
Numerous rescripts are dated in 199/200, the year in which
Septimius Severus and Caracalla visited Egypt^, and they were
doubtless given at the court sessions which the emperors held
CHAPTER V II c
while they were there^.
> Meyer, Klio, 7 (1907), 132ff.; c/. W ilcken, Arch. 4 (1908), 218. For
THE R E V E N U E S
199/200 as the date of the emperors’ visit, see W ilcken, Arch. 7 (1924), 85.
^ W ilcken, ifermes, 55 (1920), 24ff. — =>W ilcken, Arch. 7 (1924), 85— 86. The most important single function of the prefect was his re­
^ P . Oxy. 4, 705, 36— 39 (199/200 instead of 200— 202). sponsibility in connection with the revenues. In fact almost
every activity of the government existed directly or indirectly
for the purpose of assuring a maximum return of taxes. Again
and again the prefects in a subscriptio granted the request of a
petitioner “provided the interests of the treasury are not affected^.”
Egypt under the empire in a large measure took the place
of Sicily under the Republic. Its importance for the early emperors
lay in its ability to produce the grain that, according to Josephus,
fed Rome for four months every year-. Another writer states
that Egypt sent twenty million modii (about 4, 955, 940 bushels)
of grain for the cura annonae to Rome annually®.

1. Assessment of Taxes
The supervisory duties of the prefect with respect to taxation
consisted in the assessment of the revenues that were to be collected
in the current year, and in the audit of the accounts of the rev­
enues that had been paid. A highly developed system of records
and of accounting, which demanded the services of many clerks
formed the basis of these processes. Philo says that the prefect
spent the greater part of his time each year in the inspection
and audit of the accounts of the nomes^. Concerning the prefect
Avilius Flaccus he states that Flaccus displayed admirable system
in conducting the accounts and in the general arrangement of the
revenues, which were very serious matters®.
The emperor prescribed the total amount of revenues te be
raised, perhaps on the basis of reports furnished by the prefect,*
1 P . Oxy. 12, 1558 (267); P . Oxy. 17, 2132 (250); cj. P . Teh. 288 (226);
P . Ryl. 2, 84 (146).
^ Jos. B. J . 2, 386. — ® E pitom e of Aurelius Victor, 1.
* Philo, In Place. 16. — ® Op. cit. 1.
 60 The Revenues
and communicated this amount to the prefect. When Aemilius
Rectus forwarded a larger sum than had been set by Tiberius,
the latter rebuked him with the well-known saying that he wished
his sheep shorn not flayed^. The majority of the emperors were
perhaps less scrupulous.
In the assessment and collection of taxes the prefect was given
a free hand. Except for the emperor himself, he was the last
court of appeal in regard to partial or full exemption from taxes.
Thus we learn that Ilaccus (c. 32—38) and his successors up to
C. Julius Postumus (45—47/8) disregarded all partial exemptions
and exacted the regular tax from all 2 . Claudius sent a letter to
Postumus granting certain exemptions from taxes, perhaps freeing
those who had purchased their estates from the fiscus at full
value from payment of the rentals which w’^ere paid by the coloni
Caesaris^. In spite of the favor that Claudius had bestowed, the
prefects continued to collect the tax that had been abolished.
Balbillus (c. 55 59) and Vestinus (59—61) followed the commands
of Claudius. The immediate predecessor of Julius Alexander
(6 6 69) again violated the provisions of Claudius’ grant. In his
edict Alexander promised to remedy this situation and ordained
that in so far as such taxes had not already been paid into the
treasury they should be remitted and that in the future he would
exact only “the legitimate taxes**.”
The system of taxation in use under the Ptolemies was in its
essential features taken over by the government of Rome®. The
taxes to which the country was subject were well-known®. Augustus
had clearly laid down the rates and the manner of collection of
all iiregular revenues that did not permit of an advance assessment,
in the gnomon of the idiologus. No increase of taxes was per­
missible unless the emperor had given orders to that effect’.
In spite of these facts some prefects made extra assessments
of taxes or permitted them to be made by their subordinates.
We read of these extra assessments during the first two centuries
when the country was as prosperous as it had been at any time
in its history. This very prosperity led, it seems, to a movement
of population from the villages to the cities leaving fewer on the
farms to bear the burden of taxation. The head tax, it is true,
would still be paid, but the revenues of the country would suffer
through declining production of grain. The farmers in the entire
country, not only in the more remote nomes of the Thebaid,
* D io, 57, 10; cf. D io 7, 30.
2 D itt. OGJS, 669, 27— 31. - ® 1. c. 11. 30— 31. — * 1. c. 11. 26— 27
® AViloken, Grundz. 186ff. — ® D itt. OQIS, 669, 47. — ? D io, 53.
Assessment of Taxes 61
but in the region around Alexandria had complained, as the
edict of Alexander states, that many new taxes were being exac­
ted*. The prefect promised that any new tax, which had been
imposed in the preceding five years, even if it had been allowed
by a prefect at a conventus, would be abolished 2 .
A woman complained to the dioecetes that she had been re­
duced to extreme poverty as a result of extra levies ordained by
the prefect Aemilius Saturninus (197—198)*. She had been com­
pelled to sell some of her property, her household stock, and even
her ornaments at a sacrifice, to meet the demands made upon
her, although before she had been able to meet her obligations.
In P. Oxy. 6 , 916 (198) we have a receipt for a tax levied by the
prefect Aemilius Saturninus which was very likely the same
tax that proved ruinous to the woman just mentioned. The tax
was paid in money and not in kind, it was collected upon the
aroura, and the sums paid were rather high. The abbreviation
denoting the tax is not entirely clear. It is explained by W ilck en
{Ostr. 1 , 174, note 1) as oydorj'^. It seems clear that we are dealing
here with a special levy and not with a regular tax. Mention
of the same tax appears in P. Teb. 2 , 500 (second century),
BGU, 2 , 572, 5 and 1 0 , P.O xy. 9, 1185, 19 (c. 200).
The tax originally exacted for the purpose of presenting the
emperor with a golden crown at the time of a triumph, accla­
mations as imperator, and accessions, developed, in the second
half of the second century, into a regular tax paid in silver and
usually in monthly instalments®. In addition to this regular annual
tax, a special tax was imposed for the extraordinary occasions
which originally gave rise to the institution of this tax. The prefect
ordered the levy to be made, determined the amount and the num­
* D itt. OQIS, 669, 46— 47; c/. P . Graux, 1 and 2, a petition to the
prefect Balbillus from the tax collectors of six villages in the division
of Thom istes who said th a t owing to the depopulation of their villages
partly through flight and partly through death th ey were in danger of
having to give up their praotorships.
^ Ibid. 11. 48— 50; W ilcken, Ostr. 1, 451, suggests th a t the five years
m entioned here need n ot be interpreted as a “recurring” period. F ive
years m ay have elapsed since the prom ulgation of the last edict con ­
taining a similar provision.
“ P . Oxy. 6, 899, 9— 10 (200).
* The όγδοη is fully discussed by the editors of P. R yl. 2 in the Appendix.
I t is probably the eight drachma ta x on wine lands som etim es called οίνου
τέλος or σπονδή Atovvaov. P . O x y . 9, 1185 verso, 1 5 ff. indicates that the
proceeds of the ta x were considered to be the ύποκείμενα of the prefect.
® For the edict of the emperor regarding the crown ta x see P . F a y . 20
and W ilcken, Sav. Z. 42 (1921), 150 ff.
 62 The Revenues
ber of payments. Such a special tax was imposed in 198, for what
occasion we do not know. The πράκτορες άργυρικών collected
the tax
The amount of revenue to be raised from the entire country
was distributed in proportionate amounts among the various nomes.
The exact quota for each nome was assessed by a board of eclo-
gistae of the several nomes who, each with a corps of subordinates,
carried on the preliminary work of assessment for their nomes.
The eclogistae w'orked at Alexandria under the supervision of a
procurator^.
The prefect might decrease the total amount of the revenues
assessed to each nome, as we find Bassaeus Rufus (168/9) did in
the case of villages whose population had markedly decreased®.
This was done at the time of the conventus. Since the major
portion of the total tax rested upon the arable land available in
a given nome there was no diminution of the total land tax be­
cause of a decrease in population unless the prefect intervened.
The prytanis of the senate of Oxyrhynchus in 246 made a trip
to Alexandria to wait upon the prefect with a deputation from the
community concerning the quota of the imperial assessment im­
posed upon their nome^.
The numerous records sent in from the various villages and
towns, — census reports, property registrations, registrations of un­
watered land, reports of changes in cultivation, and other reports
formed the basis of assessments. The eclogistae often found it
profitable to raise the amounts required without the authorization
of the prefect. We know one of the ways in which they did this
from the edict of Julius Alexander in which he reprimanded them
for this practise. The annual tax varied with the height of the
Nile inundation. Official Nile measures were placed at various
points to mark the level reached by the river. In years of a low
Nile these officials would assess taxes in accordance with an average
of the previous years instead of using the current level as their
baisis. The prefects apparently tried to moderate the exactions
of the eclogistae to that fine point at which the people paid all
that they could without growing restless or rebellious, always
mindful of the disturbance caused by the coming of the Roman
tax collectors to the Thebaid and of the fact that political unrest
diminished revenues®.
* Meyer, P . Hamb. 1, 81 and com m entary pp. 236— 37.
W ilcken, Grundz. 208ff. _ s BOU, 3, 903 (c. 168/9).
‘ P . Oxy. 14, 1662 (246). — ^ OGIS, 669, 4— 5, 51— 52.
Tax Schedules Collection of Taxes 63
2. Tax Schedules
The schedule of taxation for each kind of tax was laid down
in a gnomon which was made pubhc^. The fullers and dyers
complained to the prefect IVI. Sempronius Liberalis that they were
being taxed with an occupation tax higher than that prescribed
by the gnomon. Liberalis referred the case to the epistrategus for
trial. Later another attempt was made to collect more than the
legal rate and the case was heard by Severianus, perhaps the
iuridicus®. Those sections of the gnomon that dealt with tolls
and customs and were not subject to periodical revision were
sometimes inscribed on stone. Such an inscription has been found
near Coptus. It is headed εξ επιταγής [Μεττίου "Ρονφου έπαρχον
Αίγυπτον. Traces only of the name remain. It was a schedule
regulating the payment of the toll exacted by the government
for the use of the desert road leading from Coptus to Berenice
on the Red Sea and for the armed escort furnished by the govern­
ment for the protection of travelers®.
3. Collection of Taxes
The strategus was directly responsible to the prefect for the
collection of the quota assigned to his nome. In matters of taxation
the prefect dealt with the strategus without the mediation of the
epistrategus. The strategi seem to have exercised some control
over the assessments made by the eclogistae for their nomes*. In
two documents of an early date the strategus was addressed d
στρατηγός έπΙ των προσόδων^. Under the strategus was the great
army of tax collectors in kind and in money. We have already
noticed how the prefect supported the authority of the strategus
against certain Romans and citizens of Alexandria who were acting
as tax collectors and who refused to subject themselves to his
jurisdiction with consequent injury to the revenues. Similarly a
toparch was threatened by a strategus with being sent to the
prefect as “careless in the collection of the taxes” unless he should
send a report of money collected®.
The prefect often requested reports from the strategi concerning
various matters connected with taxation. The prefect Tineius
1 W ilcken, Grundz. 210. — ^ p . Teb. 287 (161— 69).
® Cagnat, IG R R , 1183 (10. May, 90); W ilcken, Oatr. 1, 347ff. The
interpretation given above is that of Hogarth. Uxkull-Gyllenband,
Gnomon, 63 regards it as a gnomon for passes issued b y the authorities at
Coptus for travelers going to R ed Sea ports. ■— * W ilcken, op. cit. 504.
® BGU, 4, 1185 (15 B. C.); BG U , 4, 1189 (1 B . C.— 1 A. D .).
« P . Teb. 289 (23).
64 The Revenues
Demetrius (190) requested the strategus to send him a list of persons
owing payments of taxes. The strategus in turn asked for the
information from the collectors imder him^. The village scribes
were ordered to hand in a declaration concerning the tax class of
certain estates or “that which seems best to the prefect will be
done^.” A report of the tax collections in money was demanded
of the praetors by Valerius Pompeianus through the strategus®.
Action on a number of cases concerning individuals whose taxes
Avere overdue and whose names were handed in by the topogramma-
teus, was postponed until the time of the conventus*. The docu­
mentary evidence concerning a slave sold without the payment
of the required sale tax, was requested by the prefect at the hands
of the basilicogrammateus®.
To diminish the number of disputes arising from claims and
counterclaims concerning the payment of taxes, Petronius Mamer-
tinus issued an edict requiring that receipts be given by both the
payer and the payee, when payments in money, in kind, or in
labor were made to the government®.
The collection of the taxes leased to the publicani was carefully
regulated by the government·^. Copies of the regulations governing
such collections were posted in the offices of collection and were
inscribed upon stone. P. Oxy. 1 , 36 is a law of this kind®. It
was perhaps, as Rostowzew considers it, the regulations governing
the collection of the vectigal marts Bubri^. “In style and content
(it) finds close parallels in the Revenue Papyrus^®.” A document
apparently of a similar nature, concerning vectigales and publicani
is found inscribed on stone^^.
1 P . Teh. 336 (c. 190).
“ BG Ü , 3, 915 (second century). — ^ P S I , 5, 461 (290).
* P S I , 1, 103 (end of the second century).
® P S I , 1, 107 (end of second century). — ® P . F ay. 21, 8 (134).
’ For the collection of custom s see the customs house registries, —
P . Land. 929 I II p. 211 (second or third century); P . Land. 1169 III
p. 43ff. (second century); P . Land. 3, 964, p. 211 (late second or early
third century); P . Amh. 77, 34 to the end (139/40); Stud. 22, 63 and 64
(second or third century); N . Y . Clauson, Aegyptus 9 (1928) 240— 80
and a discussion b y Piesel, Nachr. d. Ges. Wiss. zu Gott., Phil.-H ist. Kl.
1925, H eft 1, pp. 57ff.
® W ilcken, Ein νόμος τελωνικός aus der Kaiserzeit. Arch. 3 (1906),
185— 200.
® R ostow zew , Arch. 4 (1908), 310ff.
Grenfell and H unt, P . Oxy. 1, 36 (second or third century) intr.
“ S B , 676 (62/63 ?); Milne, Gr. Inscr. 11, no. 9302; Cagnat, IG B R ,
1285; W ilcken, Sav. Z . 42 (1921), 137, “kein sicheres Indizium für ein
E d ik t.”
Collection of Taxes The Audit Abatements and Exemptions 65
In spite of the regulations, abuses crept in which demanded
correction by the prefect. “I am informed that the τελώναι . . .
are demanding the payment of the fines owing to them and are
employing physical violence . . .,” an unknown prefect remarks in
the opening sentence of a much mutilated and fragmentary edict, and
a few lines farther down he directs them πανσασ·&αι τής πλεονεξίας^.
4. The Audit
The resort for all complaints concerning taxation was the prefect
and the time when such complaints were usually heard was at
the conventus. Certain individuals petitioned the prefect for
redress against the sitologi of a village who violently broke into
their homes and demanded of them the deficit in the accounts of
the sitologi which the petitioners had not assumed. The prefect
Minicius Italus directed them to present the matter at the con­
ventus to be held in Alexandria, where they apparently were at
the time®. The senate of Hermopolis requested the permission of
the prefect to transfer certain tax moneys, which the strategus
had illegally collected, to another account. The strategus had
resorted to the forcible collection of overdue taxes, a procedure
which merited the censure of the prefect and was contrary to the
imperial ordinances®. A woman appealed to the prefect against
pressure which was being brought to bear upon her for the pay­
ment of the τέλος καχαλοχιαμών^, although she held the receipt
for the payment of this tax®. It is interesting to note in this
connection that just fourteen years had elapsed since the prefect
Mamertinus directed in an edict that mutual receipts should be
given when payments were made to the government.
5. Abatements and Exemptions
Exemption from taxes in the cases of individuals was within
the jurisdiction of the prefect but only after a dispensation by the
emperor as is clearly evident from the language used by Julius
Alexander in his edict, 1 . 27, ώς 6 έΐεός Κλανδίος εγραψε Ποατομοη
άπολνων, 11. 29, 30, εκείνων (the prefects Balbillus and Vestinus)
κατηκολον&ηκότων τψ τον ϋεον Κλαυδίου χάριτι; cf. 11. 33, 44, 64.
Ρ. Oxy. 1 2 , 1434 (107/8) is a report of a comogrammateus which
lists pieces of property and the names of the owners who were
entitled to a remission of taxes. From it we learn that the prefect
1 Unpublished Princeton U niversity Papyrus A M 8931.
2 BGU, 3, 908 (101/2).
=* Cp. Herm 52, 21 ff. (266/7); W ilcken, Arch. 3 (1906), 542.
* W ilcken, Grundz. 305. — ^ BGU, 1, 345 (148/9).
H e i n m n t h , The prefect of E gjp t
66 The Revenues
C. Julius Aquila ( 1 0 —1 1 ) continued an abatement of taxes granted
to the father of C. Julius by the prefect C. Turranius (7 B. C.
—4 B. C.). In a similar way the prefect Julius Vestinus (59—61) sold
two pieces of government land with the stipulation that they should
be exempt from taxes for three years after sale, and that after the
lapse of that period a reduced tax should be imposed^. The prefect
Pactumeius Magnus (175—77) authorized a change in the manner
of cultivation of certain imperial lands that had been leased, which
involved a change in the tax class in which it was to be placed-.
Vibius Maximus (103—107) decided that minors should be free
from the payment of the occupation tax. This decision must be
considered an interpretation of an existing law rather than a new
enactment. The decision of Maximus was cited as a precedent by
Q. Rammius Martialis (117—119)®.
Membership in the world society of athletes conferred complete
freedom from taxation^.
The emperor alone, however, could make provisions affecting
taxation that had general application. Thus Hadrian by an edict
granted a delay in the payment of τον φόρον τον άργνρικόν varying
in length for the three geographical divisions of the country, five
years for the Thebaid, four for the Arsinoite nomes, and three
years for lower Egypt®. The reason for this edict is to be sought
in a series of low Niles resulting in light crops. The natives were
hard pressed, although the last crop before the promulgation of
the edict had been heavy. W esterm ann well sums up the signif­
icance of this edict when, after pointing out that it made no
provision for a delay in the payment of rents and taxes in kind,
no change in the amount of the wheat rents, and no reduction in
the money revenues, but only a delay in their payment, he con­
cludes that “the economic policy of Hadrian’s administration was
that of a sensible creditor rather than a generous one.”
6. The Records forming the Basis of the Tax Assessments^
a) The Census and the Principle of O r ig o
A census was held every fourteen years beginning perhaps as
early as 5/6 and definitely attested for the year 19/20 and for*
^ P . Amh. 68 verso (late first century).
^ P . Lond. 3, p. 133 (late second, or third century).
» iSB,561S{c. 118). — ^ BOU, 4:, 1073 (274); Viereck, ifZio, 8 (1908), 424.
5 Jouguet, Bev. it. grec. 33 (1920), 374— 402; W estermann, J E A , 11
(1925), 177— 78; Henri H enne, Bull, de VInst, franc. 30 (1930), 153— 60
dates the edict 31. May, 136 instead of 10. June, 137.
* E . Biekermann, Arch. 9 (1930), 24— 46 deals with the form of άπο-
γραφή, οικογένεια and έπίκρισις.
The Records forming the Basis of the Tax Assessments 67
each successive fourteen year interval down to and including
257/8^. The fourteen year cycle was perhaps chosen because at
the age of fourteen years liability to the poll-tax began. The
owners of houses—in some nomes those renting the houses—
registered themselves, and those dw'elling in the house, and gave
imder oath an exact description of each individual, noting any
distinctive marks, the age, the occupation, the status, and the
relation of the various individuals in the house to one another.
The information given in the census returns served many useful
purposes, but its primary purpose was to determine the status
of all inhabitants with reference to the poll-tax.
The prefect ordered the taking of the census in an edict and the
individual census returns often make reference to the order and
give the name of the prefect issuing it. In connection with the
command for a personal registration there was perhaps an order,
couched in general terms, directing the return to the place of
residence for the purpose of making the registration. Since the
order was a periodical one, it is more than likely that the wording
followed a set formula, and that each succeeding edict was a
duplication of the preceding one except for necessary changes in
dating. An edict ordering the taking of the census is not found
among the texts at present known to us.
Since as is shown by the edicts which commanded a return to
the lòia there was no law requiring the people of Egypt to stay
in their place of residence, several of the prefects took the oppor­
tunity presented by the census to issue a separate edict empha­
sizing the general command of the census edict to that effect®.
I take the edict of C. Vibius Maximus to be an edict of this type.
That it was not an edict which ordered the taking of the census
seems clear from the following considerations. It was promulgated
late in Epiph (25. of June to 25. of July) of the year 104.
While this may be explained by the fact that the census returns
were, for the most part, made, as we know, in the year following
that in which the census fell, we should expect the official order
for the census to be promulgated earlier in the census year. More
convincing is the evident fact that the edict contains no command
1 On the census see W ilcken, Qrundz. 192— 96; Meyer, Jur. P ap. 4ff. ;
A. Calderini, La Composizione della Fam iglia secondo le schede di
censimento dell’E gitto Romano. Milan. Voi. 1, Fase. 1, Serie Terza:
^Scienze Soziale, Pubblicazione della Università Cattolica del sacro cuore,
pp. 12— 15; M. H om bert, Mèi. Thom. (1930), 440— 50.
“ P . Lond. 3, 904, p. 125, 1 8 ff.; BGU, 1, 159 (216); cf. Rostowzew,
Kolonat, 209ff.; W ilcken, Chrest. 202, intr.
68 The Revenues
for the census but rather refers in general terms to the census as
if it were already ordained, P. Land. 3, 904, p. 125, 1 . 30, τής
κατ’ οΙ[κίαν άπογραφής ε\νεστώ[σης]. Its purpose was to check the
urban movement and to cause the farmers who were absent from
their homes to take up the cultivation of their fields again, and
it was primarily addressed to those who were in Alexandria, as
is shown by the provision that was made for the exemption of
those who had necessary business in the city^. The edict of Suba-
tianus Aquila was evidently couched in similar terms since a
certain individual excused his failure to respond to a court summons
by reminding the dioecetes “that because of the necessity of the
harvest, the most excellent prefect, Subatianus Aquila, sent those
who were in Alexandria into their own nomes at the time of the
harvest 2.” It is particularly to be noticed that the census of the
year 2 0 1 / 2 was undertaken at the command of Q. Maecius Laetus,
the predecessor of Subatianus Aquila®, and was an order altogether
distinct from the edict of Aquila which was issued after the census
edict and commanded a return to place of residence. An edict
of Valerius Datus directed all who were “abroad” to return to
their homes^ and again followed after, and was distinct from the
edict commanding the taking of the census, which for the year
215/16 was issued by the acting prefect, Aurelius Antinous®. In
a letter apparently directing the publication of an edict R oos reads
ha . . . καΐ oi βονλό[μενοι τή άληϋεία] έλέγχ[ειν αυτούς αναίτιους
όντας] τοΐς κε?χυσϋε[ΐσι πειϋόμενοι έπαν]έρχωνται which he inter­
prets to refer to the contents of an edict of the kind which
we are discussing and which was issued after the edict order­
ing the census and which commanded all to return to their
places of origin. Wilcken suggests \προσ]έρχωνται and interprets,
although with no definiteness, as a promise of amnesty to all
those involved in a disturbance who will report to certain officers.
If the document can be placed with some assurance in the year
161, which Roos suggests, it presents distinct analogies to the
edicts above mentioned®.
Penalties were prescribed for a failure to make a return, or a
complete return, pursuant to the prefect’s order for the taking of
^ P . Lond. 3, 904, p. 125, 18ff.; c/. lines 28ff. (104).
2 P . Flor. 1, 6 (210).
» P . Oxy. 8, nil, col. I 3— 4 (203); P . Oxy. 12, 1548, 5 (202/3).
^ BOU, 1, 159 (216).
® P . Rein. 49, 6— 8; Stud. 2, p. 28, 16; cf. the census return made in
accordance w ith “the order of Valerius D atu s,” Stvd. 2, p. 28, 10; P . Bond.
3, 936, p. 30; ibid. 3, 935, p. 29. — « P . Gron. 1 (30. May, 161 ?).
The Records forming· the Basis of the Tax Assessments 69
the census. For failure to make a return the penalty was one-fourth
of a man’s property. The fines were collected by the idiologus^.
Under Diocletian the census was under the charge of a censitor,
but still under the supervision of the prefect, for we find two
senators of Arsinoe complaining to the prefect (Clodius Culcianus ?)
against certain irregularities that had occurred in the census to the
injury of the fiscus in the census conducted by the censitor Sabinus®.
An edict directing those absent from their place of residence to
return was promulgated at the time of the fourteen year census
by M. Sempronius Liberalis on August 28 of the year 154®. It
was called forth by two situations,—the unsettled condition of
the country (BGU, 2 , 372 3—4), and the flight of large numbers
from the burden of the liturgies {ibid., hues 5—6 ). By the unsettled
conditions the prefect referred, as P. M. Meyer has shown, to the
revolt in Alexandria in 153/4 in which the prefect had been killed.
The revolt was serious enough to call for the presence of the emperor
Antoninus Pius^. While it was the part of political prudence to
clear Alexandria of all who had no reason for being there and who
merely increased the throng of trouble-makers, it was of still
greater importance to the Roman government to cause the farmers
who had given up the working of their holdings to resume their
toils so that the revenues might not decrease.
The principle that a native could exercise his duties as subject
only in his place of residence and that elsewhere he was a ξένος,
was carried over from the Ptolemies®. The increasingly heavy
burdens of liturgical duties resting upon those holding property
was one of the strongest reasons for the flight from the villages®.
It was easier to give up one’s property than to stay and attempt
to carry the weight of liturgies resting upon it.
Every means was tried to cause the inhabitants to stay in their
place of residence and cultivate the soil. Sempronius Liberalis
1 BGU, 5, 58— 63. — ^ P . Amh. 83 (303— 306).
=> BG U , 2, 372; W ilcken, Chrest. 19 intr.; cf. the letter of Caracalla
to the prefect directing all those not resident in Alexandria to return
to their homes, P . Giss. 40, col. II 15, occasioned by the uprising in
Alexandria in th e year 215; Arch. 5 (1913), 430.
‘ P. M. Meyer, K lio, 7 (1907), 124.
® Cf. P . Oslo 17 (136) in -which a strategus is reported to have inquired
of tw o culprits w hy th ey had stayed ini ξένης im plying that it was a
crime to stay aw ay from one’s place of residence w ithout reasonable
cause. The Arabian governm ent continued to follo-w the principle of
ιδία, P . Lond. 1, p. 230 (eighth century).
® On the flight from liturgies, see Jouguet, Vie Municipale, 93— 94,
230; W ilcken, Grundz. 65; R ostowzew , Kolonat, 205ff. and note 2, p, 71.
 The Revenues
70
promised in his edict that the proscriptions against rebels and
those politically suspect as well as against those who were in debt
to the state as holders of liturgies, would not be executed, and that
all who returned to their place of residence Avoidd receive amnesty
no matter what the cause of their absence had been^ A period
of three months was allow'ed for the return, after which anyone
apprehended “abroad” was to be sent to the prefect as a criminal®.
Records were kept of the persons who had left their place of resi­
dence®.
If Caracalla’s letter to the prefect directing the deportation
from Alexandria of all farmers and inhabitants of the country
generally was addressed to the acting prefect Aurelius Antinous,
as Meyer surmises^, its provisions were perhaps incorporated into
the edict which Aurelius Antinous issued concerning the census
of 215/16®. There need be no question whether the census or the
disorder resulting from the revolution of the preceding year was
the occasion for the order since both events fell in the same year
and both were reasons for giving such a command. Wilcken's
objection to bringing Caracalla’s letter into conjunction with the
census of 215/16, on the ground that Caracalla’s letter was written
in the fall of 215 while the edict of Valerius Datus regarding the
return to place of residence was issued in 216, falls away when
we remember that Aurelius Antinous issued an order for the taking
of the census prior to the edict of Valerius Datus, which, if we are
correct, was a supplementary edict emphasizing the command to
return είς την ιδίαν^.*
1 BGU, 2, 372, 9ff. (154).
® Ibid. col. II 1 7 ff.; c/. P . F a y . 24, 11 (158).
3 P . Oxy. 2, 251, (44); 252 (19/20); 253 (19).
* Meyer, P . Oiss. 2, p. 41. — ® P . Rein, 49, 6— 8; Stud. 2, p. 28, 16.
® W ilcken, Chrest. 19 intr.; W ilcken, Arch. 5 (1913), 430; R ostowzew ,
Kolonat, 211. The city of Alexandria, like cities in our own day, was an
attractive place for those dwelling in rural districts. In it the Egyptians
from the country found a hiding place from the ever pressing demands
of the governm ent. Malcontents, too, flocked to the city from every
quarter. These elem ents were potential breeders of trouble and it was
advisable, in the interests of peace, to keep such individuals from the
city. The increase of a non-productive class causing over-population of
Alexandria was to be avoided. Thus Claudius, albeit w ith other reasons
in m ind as w ell as the one m entioned, forbade the Jew s to invite other
Jew s from Syria and P alestine to Alexandria, Bell, Jews and Christians,
25, 11. 96— 98; of. Philo, in Place. 45. B u t even if Caracalla had the
m aintenance of peace in mind, Bickermann rightly stresses th a t it was
the cultivators especially who were to be driven out of Alexandria, Gnomon,
3 (1927), 671— 75; c/. also A bbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration,
551.
The Records forming· the Basis of the Tax Assessments 71
In a complaint addressed to the strategus against violent dis­
possession from his lands, a certain individual cited an edict of
the emperors Severus and Caracalla permitting all those who were
absent from their nomes to return to their places of residence.
’Fhe edict perhaps included an announcement of amnesty for
proscribed fugitives. The document is dated in the year 207 and
the edict of the emperors may well have been issued during their
visit in 199/200^.
Primarily, then, it was the flight from liturgies, resulting in the
desertion of the farms that caused the prefects to issue separate
edicts at the time of the census commanding the natives to return
to the cultivation of their fields®.
b) Declarations of Birth
The census lists were kept up to date by reports of births and
deaths, which were made to the local authorities®.
The declaration of birth required for the children of Roman
citizens differed from that made for the children of Greco-Egyptian
parents, since the former had, of course, no connection with
taxation. It was made in Latin and not in Greek, and was ad­
dressed to the prefect and not to the scribe of the metropolis or
village^.
1 S B , 4284, 6— 8 (207); c/. line 6, “the emperors . . . dvareü.avreç
It’])' ( j a y éa[t)]T(ôr Aiyvnrcp.”
2 Such edicts are: C. Vibius M aximus, P . Bond. 3, p. 125 (104); Su-
batianus Aquila, P . Gen. 1, 16, 18— 21; P .F lo r . 1, 6 (207) ; Valerius D atus,
BG(J, 1, 159 (216); P . Oxy. 14, 1668, 18ff. (third century) refers to a
general am nesty by the prefect for those who would return to their place
of residence. I t is a private letter urging a certain Sopater to come hom e
since th e prefect had sent an am nesty, and there was no longer any
danger. Another private letter, BGU, 1, 164 (second or third century)
urged a father to return home or he would have “to give an account
to the prefect.” P . Berl. Leihgabe (1. D ec. 162) is a list of nom inees to take
over leases of public lands in place of those who had fled or were im ­
poverished. P S l , 9, 1043 (103) pictures the same conditions. P . Graux 2
(56) gives the petition of poll-tax collectors who fear th a t they wdl have
to give up their offices because of the depopulation of their vdlages.
^ W ilcken, Grundz. 195.
^ S. de R icci and P . F. Girard, Nouv. Revue, 30 (1906), 483 ; c/. P . Mtch.
lot.; P . Oxy. 1, 35 (223), a translation into Greek of a birth certificate
originally w ritten in Latin according to W ilcken, Arcfc. 4 (1908), 253;
R . Cagn'at, D eux nouveux certificats de naissance É gyptiens. Jour. Sav.
(1929), 74__77. In BGU, 7, 1690 (131), a soldier attests b y w itnesses
the birtli of a daughter u ntil such tim e as his m ilitary duties will allow
him to make an official report (to the prefect at Alexandria ?). The exact
reason for the statem ent is not clear, since it falls into neither of the
tw o classes of birth certificates. Since the soldier m aking the affidavit
 72 The Eevenues
The birth of slaves who were born in the house, Avas registered
“pursuant to the ordinance and the decree” perhaps of the prefect
c) Epicrisis
The word έπίκρισις was used to denote examinations of certain
classes of civilians as well as of veterans carried on before the
prefect or officers delegated by him, for the purpose of verifying
the authenticity of the documents upon which the individuals
in question claimed a certain personal status. Wilcken suggests
calling the first a fiscal, the second a military epicrisis^. The
former had for one of its purposes a determination of the personal
status of the individual with reference to his partial or full exemp­
tion from the poll-tax. All men from the age of fourteen to sixty
were subject to the poll-tax, except as they were admitted into
a privileged class as a result of an examination conducted by the
local authorities. The age limit may, in certain cases, have been
higher than sixty years since in P. Princeton 8 (Johnson, Princeton
Papyri, 26) a man of sixty-two years of age is recorded to have
paid the syntaximon.
A special review of the privileged classes seems to have been
made in the first year of Nero. In P. Lond. 2, 260, p. 42ff. Ave have
a list of the names of adiilt males from fourteen to eighty years
of age, the older of them being included by a direct order of the
prefect, 1 1 . 42—45. Each of these individuals is stated to haAm
undergone an epicrisis.
Admission to the privileged class ol από zov γνμνασίον was granted
after an examination by the local authorities had indicated that
the applicant had met the qualifications for admission. Epicrisis
for membership in this class seems to have had another purpose,
however, besides the grant of a privileged position with reference
to the payment of the poll-tax. It was from this class that the
local officials were chosen. The epicrisis in their case was of “a
municipal rather than of a financial character3.”
was a member of an auxiliary cohort, R om an citizenship was not involved.
I t seem s likely, however, th a t the report is made with an eye to a future
epicrisis.
1 P S I , 6, 690 (first or second century); S B , 3, 6995 (124); 6996 (127);
M itteis, Chrest. 372, col. V I l l f f . ; Sohubart, οικογένεια. Raccolta Luni-
broso, 49— 67, thinks th at the attestation of the birth of slaves was required
to m ake the exportation of E gyp tian slaves, which was illegal (BGU.
5, 64, 66, 68) more difficult.
^ W ilcken, Grundz. 197.
2 Grenfell and H unt, P . Oxy. 12, pp. 160— 62.
The Records forming the Basis of the Tax Assessments 73
Membership in this class was prerequisite for admission into the
ephebeia^. Since entry among the ephebi was necessary to Alexan­
drian citizenship just as Alexandrian citizenship was a preliminary
step in gaining Roman citizenship, and since the new status in
each case carried with it privileges affecting the financial obli­
gations of the individual to the state, the prefect guarded the
entrance into these classes^. The final examination for enrolment
among the ephebes, elanQiau;, Avas conducted by the epistrategus
in the metropolis® and by the prefect in Alexandria^, although
the enixQiaig or preliminary investigation apparently might be
imdertaken by the exegete also®.
In addition to the epicrisis of Greco-Egyptians we have in a
large number of documents, records of an epicrisis of Romans,
veterans, slaves and “others®.” The full explanation of this epi-
crisis cannot as yet be given. In general it may be said that the
purpose in the examination of all these classes by the prefect was
to determine the validity of their claims to a given legal status
by an examination of their credentials. In the epicrisis conducted
by the prefect and his military representatives, we find the follo­
wing classes coming up for examination; 1 ) veterans, 2 ) Roman
women, 3) citizens of Alexandria, 4) freedmen, 5) the slaves of
Romans and of Alexandrians, 6 ) Greco-Egyptians, whether
veterans or not^. Just when epicrisis became necessary in the
case of each of these classes cannot be said with definiteness. In
the case of veterans we know that it took place, in one instance,
when a change of residence or settlement in a given locality was
contemplated®. The examination was, however, in no case made
for the purpose of determining eligibility to military service. It
is a priori probable that epicrisis was resorted to only AA’hen the
necessity arose for a legal definition of status.
1 Jouguet, Vie Municipale, 1 5 0 ff.; W ilcken, Grundz. 138ff.
^ B ell, Records of E n try am ong the Ephebi. J E A , 12 (1926), 245— 47.
® B oak, J E A , 13 (1928), 151, 15— 17.
P . Flor. 3, 382, 67— 91 (223— 25); W ilcken, Arch. 3 (1906), 535;
ibid. 4 (1908), 441; P . Oxy. 10, 1266 (98).
® W ilcken, Grundz. 142 and P . Berol. 13 896(186), a parallel to P . Oxy. 3
477 (132/3); Boak, op. cit. pp. 219— 21.
® W ilcken, Grundz. 196— 201, 395— 404; Lefebvre-Jouguet, Bull. Soc.
Arch. 14 (1912), 1 9 4 ff.; K enyon, P . Lond. 2, pp. 42— 46; Grenfell and
H u n t, P . Oxy. 12, pp. 148— 53. See the introductions to the various
docum ents cited, particularly, Meyer, P . Hamb. pp. 131— 36; W essely,
Epicrisis. Sitz. Wien. A k . P hil.-H ist. K l. 142 (1900); Jouguet, Vie M u n ic­
ipale, 79— 85, 150ff. — ’ P . Oxy. 12, p. 152.
s BGU, 3, 1033; P .O x y . 7,1023 (second century); c/. BGU, 4, 1032(173).
 74 The Revenues
That the epicrisis examination was of great importance is in­
dicated by the fact that it was conducted by the prefect or by
military officers delegated to that task by "^the prefect. Most
commonly an officer of a military or naval detachment functioned
as the examining judge in the epicrisis hearing. A period of three
months was usually devoted to the epicrisisk The examination
was held in a conventus city, as a rule in Alexandria.
The order of procedure at the epicrisis was apparently as follows.
The individuals who were to be examined appeared in person
before the prefect or his representative, and presented the docu­
mentary evidence, census returns, birth registrations certificates
of various kinds,—in the case of veterans, military diplomas
discharge papers, et cetera—oi the status to which they were
laying claim. The individual or individuals (it seems to have been
the custom to examine the entire family at the time when the
father or the son underwent epicrisis) testified on oath to the truth
of the statements contained in the documents presented in evi­
dence and brought with them witnesses, usually three in number
who swore to their identity, and the truth of their depositions!
A record of the hearing, together with the evidence presented was
incorporated in the τόμος επικρίσεων. The presiding officer certi­
fied to the correctness of the record and if the evidence presented
was satisfactory, issued a statement to the individual which
attested to the confirmation of his status by epicrisis k
1 Meyer, P . Hamb. p. 132, note 2.
BG U , 4, 1033 (c. 114— 17), slaves exam ined by M. R utilius Lunus
the prefect; S B , 5217, Lefebvre, Bull. Soc. Arch. 14 (1912), 196ff. (148)'
Illegitim ate sons of R om an m others exam ined by the chiliarch of a legion
or the prefect; BOU, 4, 1032 (173), uncertain; BGU, 1, 324 (166 7)
slaves; P S I , 5, 447 (167), slaves exam ined by the prefect R utilius Lupus
m 114 and sons (of R om an citizens?) exam ined b y the prefect Munatius
girl, and the slaves of R om ans exam ined by the prefect of the fleet for
th e prefect C. Calvisms Statianus; BGU, 3, 847 (c. 1 8 1 - 8 3 ) Rom an
citizens (?) and slaves exam ined by the prefect Veturius Macrinus;
. Hamb. 1 31 (second century), veterans exam ined by the chiliarch
o± a legion for the prefect C. Vibius M aximus (103— 107)· B G U 1 11‘^
exam ined b y the prefect A vidius Heliodorus; BGU, 1
205 (148), veterans exam ined by the chiliarch of a legion for the prefect
f- of H adrian), veterans
exam ined b y th e prefect of a cavalry squadron for the prefect T Flavius
v eteran s'^ ex am in id by t L
prelect M. Sem pronius Liberalis; P S I , 5, 447, lOff. (167), veterans ex-
(*164^^7^^ ff’o chiliarch of a legion for the prefect Ϊ . Flavius Titianus
The Records forming the Basis of the Tax Assessments 75
d) Registration of Property
Under the peculiar conditions prevailing in Egypt which made
necessary the determination of boundaries each year, it was highly
iniportant to have a clear and recognized record of the property
in one’s possession in order to avoid endless litigation. A more
important consideration for desiring a record of property on the
part of the Roman government was its interest in the property
possessed by each person as an indication of his ability to bear
the burdens of taxation. This was particularly true when difficulty
arose in finding suitable individuals to carry the oppressive liturgies.
The authorities cannot have been unaware of the value of such
records as a check on the assessment of taxes.
Separate record offices in which the registrations of property
were kept were apparently to be found in the nomes, since the
prefect Minicius Italus directed the strategi of the Arsinoite nomes
to build a new record office on a site agreed upon by them in
consultation with the procurator in which all the records even if
jiartially destroyed might be preserved so that no one might make
an illegal transfer of property^. Such an office was known as
βιβλιοϋήκη έγκτήσεων and in some respects was analogous to our
abstract office^. Some knowledge of its functions may be gained
from the edict of M. Mettius Rufus, the prefect, which ordered
a general registration of property within six months following the
issuance of the order in the year 89®. Mettius Rufus was informed
by the strategus of the Oxyrhynchite nome that “private and
public” affairs were in a disorganized condition because the pro­
perty records had not been properly kept. The preceding prefects
had ordered the records to be revised in accordance with the
changes in ownership but this had evidently not been thoroughly
done. Mettius Rufus now directed all to make a complete return
to the record office, containing the following information,—a
statement by the owner of the property in his possession, the
mortgages, if any, resting upon it, all other claims upon the pro­
perty, the source from which the property had come into the
possession of the registrant, a statement of claims upon the hus­
band's property by the wife of the registrant, if by native Egyptian
law she had such a claim, a statement by the children regarding
any claim they might have to the property upon the death of
their parent^. Registrations of an earlier date were to be preserved
1 S B , 4, 7378. — 2 M itteis, Grundz. 90— 112; Lewald, GrundbuchrecM;
Eger, Grundbuchwesen. — ^ P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V III 27— 43.
^ Cf. P . Oxy. 4, 713 (97), and O P R , 28, 110 for illustrations of κράτησις
or κατοχή of children upon the property of their parents.
 76 The Revenues
as well as official abstracts of them as a check upon the accuracy
of the returns that were to be made. To prevent the necessity
of another registration the keepers of the record office were to
revise the abstracts every five years. The records were filed by
villages and classes. The edict provided further that no contracts
were to be made without an order from the record office.
Several points of interest at once emerge from a consideration
of this edict. A record of the kind ordered, if properly made and
kept, gave the information necessary to determine at once the
unencumbered value of every piece of property in Egypt. It also
gave the names of those having claims upon the property and the
extent of their claims. A reliable check was provided upon the
transfer of property. What interests us here is the fact that the
highest office of the government was interested in the information
yielded. Public as well as private affairs were disorganized when
these records were poorly kept.
Mettius Rufus did not institute a new system of records. He
revised a system that was not functioning properly. The Ptolemies
are known to have decreed registrations of property from time
to time, similar to those ordained by the edict of 89h The prefects
before Mettius Rufus too, had on many occasions ordered the
needed corrections to be made in the records.
We know of at least four such registrations ordered by prefects
before Mettius Rufus, in 59/60 (commanded by Julius Vestinus)^
in 63/64 under Nero«, in 80S and under Domitian prior to Mettius
Rufus m the year 865. prefects concerned that the
exact status of the property of every owner should be on record ?
In addition to a desire to diminish the amount of litigation and
to insure the maintenance of private credit, they may have wished
an accurate record of the resources of those who might desire to
contract for public taxes or lease public lands. R ostow zew , Kolonat,
208 and BGU 1047 show that there was an examination of the
record office in some such cases. The assessment of taxes was
made on the basis of records kept by the comogrammateus for the
viUage and by the grammateus for the metropolis®. It was for
the official abstract of these records, rd diaatQWfxara, and not for
those which Mettius Rufus ordered to be made in the property
‘ C/. P . Land. 1, p. 50; P . Petr. 2, 36. — ^ p . Oxy. 2, 250 (c. 59— 61).
P . Oxy. 2, 248, 32. — ^ P . Oxy. 2, 248; ibid. 249.
»S'iMd. 22, 86 IS perhaps a late registration for the year 84, since it alone
breaks the five-year interval consistently m aintained by the other registra-
probably should more properly be placed in the year 89.
W iloken, Orundz. 206.
The Records forming the Basis of the Tax Assessments 77
record office that Subatianus Aquila inquired in order that he
might examine them^.
When property changed hands by sale, cession, or inheritance,
a return was made to the record office^. In P. Fay. 31 (c. 129) we
find a request addressed to the keepers of the property records
for authorization to sell a house.
The edict of Mettius Rufus did not prevent the necessity of
another registration later. Edicts directing a general registration of
property were issued in 89 (the order of Mettius Rufus), 99, 109,
130/1, 194—96, 2 0 2 , 215/16, 219/20, 297/8®. The five-year interval
at which edicts were issued may very likely have stood in relation to
the five-year revision period provided in the edict of Mettius Rufus*.
An edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis, very probably of the year
156, had to do with the registration of land®. It seems to have
provided in particular for a description of the nature of the land
and the kind of cultivation.
e) Registration of Unwatered and Vncultivatable Lands
In definite connection with the assessment of taxes were the
registrations of lands that had not been reached by the Nile floods.
* BG U , 2, 484 (201); for an illustration of the kind of dmargibyara
which M ettius R ufus ordered to be m ade, see P . Oxy. 2, 274 (89— 97),
2 BG U , 1, 184; BGU, 1, 379; P . Bond. 299, p. 150 (128); P . Bond. 300,
p. 161 (129).
® 89/90, M ettius Rufus, P S I , 8, 942; P . Oxy. 2, 247; P . Oxy. 1, 72;
2, 274; 2, 358. 99, P . Oxy. 3, 481. 109, P . Oxy. 3, 482; P . Oxy. 3, 637.
130/1, BGU, 1, 53, 1; ibid. 2, 420; ibid. 2, 459; P . F ay . 32; ibid. 216;
P .G en. 1, 27; P . Oxy. 3, 584, recto and verso. 194— 96, U lpius Primianus,
B G U ,3 ,Q 7 3 . 202, P G P , 1, 139. 215/16, Aurelius A ntinons, P . Ox?/. 6, 970.
219/20, Geminius Chrestus, P . Grenf. 1, 49. c. 250, the oatholicus Mar-
cellus, P . Oxy. 1, 78; cf. P . Bond. 3, p. 110, 5. 297/8, D iocletian and
M aximianus, P . Flor. 1, 32; P . Cornell, 19 and 20; P . Thead. 54 and 55.
* I see no evidence for a general registration of property in the year
129 (Grenfell and H unt, P . Oxy. 2, p. 179, and the note on line 31).
P . Oxy. 1, 75 dated in that year was a return of property inherited under
a will, and bears no m ention of an order b y the prefect, as all registrations
of a general nature do. I t is a supplem entary return which was required
when property changed hands. The editors date P . Oxy. 3, 584 c. 129.
On the recto and the verso it contains property returns m ade in accordance
w ith the com m ands of Flavius Titianus, who was prefect from 126— 32
(hardly the prefect of the sam e nam e in 164— 67). A num ber of other
docum ents cited above indicate th a t T. Flavius Titianus issued an order
for a general registration of property in 130/31. Since it is unlikely th a t
Titianus should issue tw o such orders in his short term of office, this
docum ent should be dated in 131, or perhaps better 132, since returns
Were usually made in th e year follow ing th e order.
P . Oxy. 7, 1032 (162); S B , 4416 (c. 157).
 78 The Revenues
These returns were made in accordance with an edict issued by
the prefect (in one case by the procurator usiacus, perhaps a supple­
mentary edict) and were addressed to the strategus and the basilico-
grammateusi. There is no evidence that the prefect directed the
legistration of lands under water, sanded, or otherwise waste
lands Our sources do not indicate whether these returns were
called for annually or only in years of a low Nile. The former
seems more likely since the rise of the river varied from year to
year.
/. Episcepsis
The prefect gave orders for the annual episcepsis. Its purpose
was to keep the government informed concerning any changes
that had occurred in the nature of the land which would affect
its classification or any change in cultivation that concerned the
assessment of taxes. He also set a time limit for the inspection
of the dams and the irrigation canals^.
7. Assessments for the Visits of the Prefect and Other Officials^
The duty of supplying provisions and transportation facilities
for the prefect and his staff, as well as for the emperors on their
occasional visits to Egypt, was particularly onerous because of
the uncertain nature of the demands and because of the opportu­
nities for peculation that presented themselves in connection witli
the imposition and the collection of these supplies. The prefect
was empowered to make requisitions for the service of the state.
The expenses entailed by his annual visits to the cities where the
conventus was held and his frequent trips of inspection throughout
were paid for by the inhabitants. Preparations were made
^ 162/3, Annius Syriacus, P . Grenf. 2, 56; P . F ay . 33, 9— 12; B G L \
1, 198. 163/4, P . Oslo, 2, 26a. 169, M. Bassaeus R ufus, P S I , 3, 161.
170, C. Calvisius Statianus, Aegyptus 13 (1933), 1, 45ff. 194/6, BGU,
3, 973. 202/3, B G V , 1, 139; P . Oxy. 8, 1113, col. I. In P . Hamb. 1, 11,
th e order was issued b y the procurator usiacus. 208, Subatianus Aquila,
P . Teb. 324. 226, P . Oxy. 12, 1459, the order was issued by unnamed
prefects and an ex-epistrategus, Julius Sopator. 240, P . Oxy. 12, 1549.
On lands not reached by th e N ile floods see W estermann, U ninundated
Lands in E gyp t. Cl. P hil. 15 (1920), 120— 37; ibid. 16 (1921), 169— 88:
idem, yrj χέρσος Cl. Phil. 17 (1922), 21— 36.
“ W ilcken, Grundz. 204.
® P . Giss. 62 (end of Trajan’s reign); B G U 1, 12, 12— 15 (181— 82);
c/. W ilcken, Grundz. 206— 208; Stein, Έπίσκεψις, 176— 80; C. G allavotti,
U n registro catastrale un libro processuale dalla Marmorica. Bull. 1st.
D ir. Rom. 29 (1931), fasc. iv-vi 19— 39.
^ W ilcken, Op. cit. 358— 368.
Assessments for the Visits of the Prefect and Other Officials 79
in advance for the visit, παρουσία (Wilcken, Ostr. 2, 1372 and
commonly), επιδημία (P. Lond. 3, p. 239), ενοδος {P. Lond. 3, 1159,
recto, p. 1 1 2 ), είσοδος, άψιξις, πάροδος of the prefect and his retinue.
In several places, perhaps in each of the cities w'here the conventus
was held and other towns tvhere the prefect customarily stopped
on his inspection trips, πραιτώρια were built for the accomodation
of the prefect and his party. They also served as places for holding
court Germanicus apparently did not use them as his stopping
places^. In P. Lond. 3, 1159, p. 1 1 2 (145—147) we have a list of
names prepared by the tOAvn clerk of Hermopohs of those individuals
upon whom the responsibility rested of furnishing provisions and
other supplies for the impending official visit of the prefect Valerius
Proculus. The persons named in the list seem to have constituted
a permanent committee to function upon the occasion of re­
curring visits, since the appointment of substitutes for certain
deceased individuals is mentioned. Different ones were made
responsible for bread, veal, pork, wine, hay, straw, barley, wood,
charcoal, torches, fowl, fish, olives, oil, lentils, and various other
supplies. We have two receipts for money paid for w^heat which
was purchased from the state granaries by individuals who wOre
evidently required to pay in kind the requisition imposed upon
them for a visit to Thebes of the prefect Avilius Elaccus®.
In addition to the immediate retinue of the prefect, requisitions
for the viaticum of his military escort were imposed upon the
people. Two receipts, the one in Greek for 2841 loaves of bread
at an obol each, and one in Latin for 640 measures of wine at four
obols each in return for supplies for this purpose, were given to
the eutheniarch of Oxyrhynchus. The price for these supplies was
fixed, τιμήν ώρισμένην, most probably by the prefect*. It is very
likely, as W ilcken has shoΛvn, that these receipts were given upon
the occasion of the trip of the prefect Geminius Chrestus to Upper
Egypt®. There is mention of “barley for the annona” of the prefect
exacted by the beneficiarius of his staff in Stud. 20, 75, col. I 15.
Similar provision was made for the infrequent visits of the
emperor to Egypt. Liturgical “overseers” were appointed to make
preparations for the visit of Hadrian to Thebes®. Camels were
requisitioned for use upon the occasion of the visit of Caracalla
to Alexandria in the autumm of 215·^. Although Germanicus wished
* P . Lond. 1, 46, p. 234; W ilcken, Arch. 4 (1908), 116, 1. 13 (258).
2 W ilcken, Arch. 6 (1920), 287.
^ W ilcken, Chrest. 414 (33); W ilcken, Ostr. 2, 1372 (9. Aug. 33).
* S B , 3, 7181 (4. Mar. 220). — ® W ilcken, Arch. 8 (1927), 99.
8 W ilcken, Chrest. 412. — ’ BGU, 1, 266, 9— 10.
 80 The Revenues
his stay in Egypt to be altogether unofficial and announced in
his edict that all supplies and transportation facilities would be
paid for by his scribe Baebius, in accordance with an official
“schedule” announced by the latter^, contributions were made in
preparation for his visit in Thebes, and, no doubt, elsewhere as
welP.
8. Requisitions for the M ilitary Forces
As the head of the the military detachments stationed in Egypt,
the prefect issued orders determining the quantity of grain that
was to be supplied to the several units of troops and set the price
that was to be paid for the grain^. In PSI, 683 (199/200) the
epistrategus directed the strategi to report to him the number of
cows, calves, goats, pigs, and the quantity of hay and of wine
immediately available in their respective nomes for military pro­
visions. The elders of the village were entrusted with the respon­
sibility of collecting the grain from individuals and of delivering
it to the officer of the detachment who had been detailed for the
work. The strategus exercised control over the whole transaction
within the nome. The prefect Pomponius Januarianus requested
the strategus to transmit to him the receipts for a quantity of
bread delivered to military and naval units^. An affidavit was
placed on record that wood had been delivered to a detachment
of soldiers®. A strategus informed the council of Oxyrhynchus
that a supply of meat had been sent to Mcopolis for the troops
there at the command of the prefect Sabinianus®. Another report
gave an account of the arrears in the supply of annona which
had been ordered for the use of the troops accompanying the
prefect Valerius Eirmus^. The prefect Avidius Heliodorus ordered
woven goods to be prepared by Egyptian weavers for the use of
the army in Cappadocia and authorized an advance payment for
the work of the weavers®.
^ S B , 3924, 13 and 17; c/. W ilcken, Zum Germanious Papyrus.
Hermes 63 (1928), 43— 65.
^ W ilcken, Chrest. 413.
^ BO U , 3, 842 (181), Pom ponius Faustianus; BOU, 3, 807 (185),
Longaeus R ufus; P . Amh. 108 (185/6); P . Amh. 107, 10 (185); P . R v l. 2, 85
(274/5); P S I , 7, 797 (232); BGU, 1, 381.
* P . Oxy. 8, 1115 (284). — s p Leihgabe 9 (240/1).
« P . Oxy. 1, 60 (323).
’ P . Oxy. 9, 1194 (c. 265). For a discussion of the identification of
this prefect w ith Claudius Firmus, see th e editors’ introduction
* BGU, 7, 1564 (9. Sept. 138).
Requisitions ior the Military Forces Peculation and Extortion 81
Camels were commonly requisitioned by the prefect for both
military and civil service. The statement found in some documents
that a camel was sent out “for hire” indicates that such service
was not in every case an unpaid liturgical task, but that pay
was received for the service. One can easily imagine that the
remuneration was less than that received for similar service other­
wise. Thus in several texts we learn that camels were requisi­
tioned for various services, — for dragging a porphyry pillar
from the quarries^, for imperial service on the Berenice-Coptus
road, perhaps to form a part of the military escort for travelers
using that road'·^, and for military service outside of Egypt®.
How the requisition of camels for a military campaign was arranged
is indicated by P. Flor. 2, 278 (second half of the second century).
We have here a volume of letters emanating from the office of
a military official all of the same general form. Some were not
written out in full in the office records but were merely referred to,
‘‘a letter of the same type was sent to —.” They were written to the
strategi of several nomes directing them to send a specified number
of camels under the charge of subordinates to certain designated
points, Babylon, Memphis, and Tymbo. The camels were desired
for an expedition at whose head the writer was going to place
himself. The order for the requisition was made by the prefect
as the commander expressly stated in the letter. We may assume
that the prefect also indicated the number of camels that were
to be furnished by each nome.
9. Peculation and Extortion
The numerous and complex demands which the government
made upon the inhabitants of Egypt, brought with them many
occasions for illegal exactions. Grasping officials entrusted with
great powers over a submissive and, for the most part, uneducated
people were not slow to avail themselves of every advantage for
personal gain that their positions brought them. Decrees were
issued and laws were made against extortion by officials under
the Ptolemies^ and in Roman times the prefects found it necessary
to make official pronouncements concerning this subject more
often than about any other.
1 BGU, 3, 762 (162/3).
“ P . Bond. 2, 328, p. 74 (163); cf. D itt. OGIS, 674; P . Land. 2, 489,
p. 255 (third century).
® BGU, 1, 266 (216/17). — * P- Par. 61; P . Teh. 1, 5 (118 B. C.).
Keinm atb, The Prefect o f Kgypt 6
82 The Revenues
Philo states that Lampo, who acted perhaps as a commentariis
for Avilius Flaccus “perverted the record for pay^.” The tables
were turned upon Lampo, however, for when he himself stood
a prisoner before the bar, the judge delayed his trial for two years
on various pretexts 2 . An interesting sidelight on the value of
contacts of the right sort in the court of the prefect is given by
P. Oxy. 2 , 294 (2 2 ). It is a letter to a man awaiting trial at Alexan­
dria, in which his friend urges him to enter the service of the chief
usher of the prefect, so that he might enter the court with him.
On the whole, however, there is little direct evidence for venality
in the courts.
In the collection of the taxes numerous instances of peculation
and illegal exactions are found in the texts of the Roman period.
Vergilius Capito (48—52) found it necessary to promulgate an
edict directed against extortion and oppression. While it dealt
to a large extent, as did later edicts by other prefects, with the
unjust demands made by the soldiery upon the people, it also
gave consideration to illegal exactions in matters of taxation.
Capito ordered that any irregularities in collection were to be
reported within two months (four months in the case of the The-
baid) to the audit bureaus and they were in turn to report to
Basilides, the emperor’s freedman, and, no doubt, as Wilcken
has suggested, the head of the bureau of eclogistae. Capito prom­
ised that the prefect would give consideration to cases thus
reported doubtless at the time of his inspection and audit trips®.
Julius Alexander (66—69) commanded the strategi not to accept
gifts from the eclogistae without the permission of the prefect*.
Since the strategus exercised some control over the assessment
of taxes for his nome, which was carried out by the eclogistae,
the latter could not make assessments profitable to themselves
without the collusion of the strategus. The strategus of the Tanite
nome was reprimanded by a higher official for peculation and the
letter was sent to the other strategi and royal scribes for their
warning together with an exhortation not to divert imperial rev­
enues to the emoluments of the collectors within the nome®.
The collectors, too, were always ready to enrich themselves by
demanding more from the people than was required by the gov­
ernment. The fullers and dyers complained to the prefect that
the inspector of taxes had wrongly entered a larger amount against
^ Philo, In Flacc. 131— 34. — 2 Ibid. 129.
3 D itt. OGIS, 665, 30— 37 (48). — ^ Ibid. 669, 53.
^ P . Oxy. 3, 474 (184?).
Peculation and Extortion 83
them than the tariff prescribed. The prefect referred the case
to the epistrategus who asked the eclogistae to verify the rate
of taxation for the last twenty years, and decided the case in
favor of the petitioners*. A weaver complained to the strategus
of an extortion by a collector®. A petition for redress sent to the
prefect Pomponius Faustianus (185—187) accused various magi­
strates in charge of the collection of wheat with peculation®.
Reference to a command of the prefect Aurelius Proculinus (under
the Gordiani ?) Avas made in an appeal for justice against illegal
exactions of a nature not clearly known*.
In an unpublished edict already mentioned, to be dated in the
early part of the second century a prefect, whose name the papyrus
does not yield, commanded the τελώναι to cease from their πλεονεξία
which took the form of imposing fines, collecting them Avith the
use of violence and in some Avay not clearly ascertainable making
their victims pay for freedom from molestation®.
On the other hand P. Oxy. 1, 44 shoAvs that in the late first
century tax collecting was not a profitable business for if it had
been easy to win large returns by farming the collection of taxes,
there would have been no shortage of applicants. Under Nero,
laws and edicts were promulgated throughout the provinces
and, no doubt, Egypt checking the rapacity of those charged
Avith the collection of taxes. A reform was brought about that
greatly diminished the number of illegal exactions.
The care of the numerous parties of officials traveling through
the country at the expense of the people consisted in furnishing
two things — transportation, αγγαρεία, Avhether by animals or
by boats and either money payments with which the officials
might purchase that which they needed είς δαπάνας or the supplies
themselves, ξένια, or both®. The officials readily plundered what
they could in addition on the pretext that it was allotted for
their use. The edict of Capito laid down a penalty for illegal
requisitions, — a fine of tenfold the amount illegally exacted.
One-fourth of the offender’s property was given to the informer*.
1 P . Teb. 287 (168/9).
^ P . Oxy. 2, 284 (c. 50); ibid. 285 (c. 50). — ^ P . Amh. 79 (186).
“ P . Rein. 51 (third century).
® U npublished Princeton U niversity Papyrus A . M . 8931.
e 3924, 5·— 9, 11— 16, αγγαρεία; 16— 21, ξένια and εφόδια; Wi-
lam ow itz and Zucker, Sitzb. A l . Berl. 38 (1911), SOlff.; c/. the frequent
insistence of Cicero th a t neither he nor any of his staff save L. Tullius
took anything even under the Julian law, of whose application, if it was
still in force, the papyri say nothing. Cic. ad Alt. 5, 10, 2; ibid. 5, 21, 5.
’ D itt. OGIS 665, 27— 36; c/. 11. lOff.
6*
84 The Revenues
Augustus had prescribed the limits of the exactions that might
be made on the score of entertainment and transportation by
those in the public service and had communicated them to Magius
Maximus, the prefect^. Under no circumstances was anything
to be taken without an order issued by the prefect, and this order
was given only to officials who were traveling through the country2 .
These diplomata were, no doubt, of the same kind as those re­
ferred to in the Trajan-Pliny correspondence, which were issued
by the emperor himself and were limited by date to definite periods
in which they could be used®. The prefect Aemilius Rectus (41—42)
prohibited the impressment of the animals of those in the country
for transportation service. He forbade anyone not possessing
an order from him to request money for maintenance or to receive
any gift from the inhabitants. Those to Λvhom an order had been
issued were to take only what they required for actual use and
were to pay the price which had been set for what they used.
The severest punishments were threatened against anyone in
the public service who should use violence upon any of the natives
or extort money from them*.
Although the entire body of officials trespassed in this respect,
the soldiers and police officers were apparently the worst offenders.
A village scribe gave a sworn statement that, to the best of Ids
knowledge, no one in the village had suffered extortion at the hands
of a certain soldier or his agents®.
In the years 133—^137 M. Petronius Mamertinus in an edict
directed that soldiers and βασιλικοί were to take nothing for
travel on land or on water, either with violence or in return for
a favor or a service, without an official order. Both the one taking
and the one making a gift were to be punished®.
An edict of Subatianus Aquila (2 0 2 —2 1 0 ) aimed at the repres­
sion of extortion on the part of officials, to which reference was
made by the use of the expressive word διασεισμός''.
1 D itt. OGIS 665, 26— 27; cf. Philo, in Place. 74.
2 D itt. OGIS 665, 21ff. — = Plin. E p. 10, 10. 45. 46.
* P . Land. 3, 1171, p. 107 verso, col. I lo . Professor A. C. Johnson
suggests to me that the assessment μερισμός διπλής m ay have been col­
lected in the second century to enable the villages to m eet the expenses
of soldiers and officials travelling w ith a diploma, but, as he says, this
is still uncertain.
® P . Oxy. 2, 240 (37). — 6 P S I , 5, 446 (133/7).
’ P . Oxy. 8, 1100 (206).
CHAPTER IX
THE A D M IN IST R A T IO N OF JU ST IC E
Official access to the prefect was possible only by means of a
written document addressed to him. As the administrative and
judicial head of the government, numerous requests were directed
ito him upon many subjects. Subordinate officials were usually
appealed to in cases within their jurisdiction before a petition
was addressed to the prefect. There seems, however, to have
been no regulation forbidding direct recourse to the prefect over
the heads of lower officials*. Sometimes minor magistrates would
be addressed at the same time as the prefect concerning the same
matter; cf. SB, 5235 (12), a complaint to the prefect Magius Maxi­
mus concerning the theft of a trough with violence; and SB, 5238,
a similar complaint concerning the same matter to the hecatonar-
ches. In judicial matters appeal was regularly made to the pre­
fect®. Even in the case of petitions to other officials, the request
was frequently made that a copy of the petition be sent to the
prefect®.
]. Letters and Petitions sent to the Prefect
Written documents presented to the prefect might take two
forms, — the επιστολή and the νπόμνημα. The name, υπόμνημα,
was given to any document formally addressed to some govern­
ment official or some government office and was more particularly
the formal designation of a petition as opposed to the colloquial
1 EGU, 4, 1139 (5 B. C.); P . R y l. 2, 114 (c. 280); S B , 5235 (12); BGU,
2, 378 (second or third century).
2 M ittels, Ber. Ges. IFiss. Leipz. 62 (1910), 86.
2 BGU, 1, 176, 8 (117— 38); P .O is s . 2, 92 (c. 117); P . O x y . 8, 1121, 27
(295).
 86 The Administration of Justice
βιβλίόιον. The difference between the form of the petition and
the letter lay principally in the salutation, that of the petition
being, τω δεΐη παρά δεινός, that of the letter, d δείνα τφ δεΐνι
χαίρειν^. M itteis has shown that there was a still more essential
difference in the official character of the two forms^. The petition
was to be presented to the prefect or to the official concerned
during the hours which he had appointed for the reception of
such documents. In the case of the prefect we shall not be far
wrong in saying that the conventus was the time appointed for
this purpose. On the contrary, the letter was of an informal nature
and was sent to the addressee rather than submitted to him
personally.
2. Form and Language of the Petition
The form of the petition sent to the prefect was more or less
uniform. It began by giving the name of the prefect, followed
by his title both in the dative case, the name and the place of
residence of the petitioner and then took up the recitation of the
circumstances giving rise to the complaint. These were given
in full so that the prefect could decide on the basis of the petition
what steps were to be taken. Copies of any documents that were
to accompany the libellus were incorporated into the body of the
petition. The locus classicus in this respect is the famous petition
of Dionysia in P. Oxy. 2 , 237 which is made up of a number of
documents, including several edicts of prefects, decisions of judges,
and letters to the prefect.
The style in the petition was free and colloquial. The appeal
usually concluded by a statement δίο άζιώ (or less frequently
παρακαλώ) . . . εάν ψαίνηται, (infinitive expressing the request),
“I may obtain justice or redress,” followed by ευτυχεί or διεντύχεΡ.
The petitions were sometimes written by public scribes. In such
cases the petitioner certified to the fact that he had handed in
the document by signing his name followed by έπιδέδωκα. A
date sometimes came next, but whether this was the date of the
writing of the petition or whether the date was written in the
1 W ilcken, Hermes 55 (1920), 10; ibid. 22 (1887), 4 ff.; Arch. 5 (191.3),
263, 441.
2 M itteis, op. cit. 85— 104, partioulary 92— 93; c/. P . Strass. 5, 6.
» P . Oxy. 2, 285, 20. 21 (50).
Form and Language oî the Petition Kinds of Petitions 87
office after being handed in, is not clear^. See P . Flor. 1, 6 (23. July,
2 1 0 ) where the petition was handed in by a representative.
The purpose in submitting petitions varied. The petitioner often
sought redress that called for administrative action, as for example,
exemption from a liturgy®. Sometimes the petition was handed
in merely for the purpose of record so that in the event of future
litigation it could be referred to®. Most commonly petitions to
the prefect were written for the purpose of securing judicial re­
dress before the prefect or his delegated judge^. Requests for the
granting of some legal right, — bonorum possessio, appointment
of a guardian, ius trium liberorum, manumission of slaves, opening
of wills, permission to take possession of a pledge, the right to
make a cessio bonorum, the wife’s claim to her dowry, came before
the prefect as the supreme judge of the land.
3. Kinds of Petitions
The petitions to the prefect, exclusive of those asking for the
grant of some private law right may roughly be divided into
several groups with reference to their subject matter.
Claims for exemption from the imposition of public duties or
liturgies.
Restitution of property alienated by fraud or violence, and
confirmation of ownership®.
1 Cf. P . Oxy. 7, 1032 for a com plete petition, which illustrates the form
of the various parts.
2 Arch. 5 (1913), 38 (Caius Turranius, 7 B. C. — 4 B. C.), a Jew asks
for th e privilege enjoyed by those six ty years old; P . Strass. 57 (30. Dec.
172), a com plaint against a nom ination to a liturgy in a village other
than one’s own; P . Teb. 302 (71/72) priests com plain of a tax, illegally
im posed upon lands assigned to them ; W ilcken, Chrest. 26 (135), a request
for the protection of th e relatives of colonists going from Ptolem ais to
Antinoopolis; Stud. 22, 66, 13 (138— 61), concerning release from a liturgy ;
P Rein. 47 (second century), im perial lease holder com plains of a d uty
placed upon him ; P . Oxy. 17, 2131 (207), application for relief from the
liturgy of public donkey driver; B G U 2, 648 (164 or 196), the petitioner
seeks restitution of property and freedom from com pulsory cultivation.
3 P . Oxy. 10, 1253 (fourth century).
* S B 5232 (14); P . Flor. 3, 319 (132— 37); P . R y l. 2, 113 (133);
P . R o s s .’-Oeorg. 2, 20 (c. 146); P .O x y . 12, 1468 (c. 258); P . Thead. 18 (third
or fourth century), and m any others.
^ P . Flor. 3, 319 (132— 37), orphans ousted from their land by neigh­
bors; P . R y l. 2, 113 (133), a petition for the recovery of 500 drachmas;
BQTJ, 1, 256 (138__61), the return of property and redress for insults;
P . Pond. 3, 908, p. 132 (139), illegal detention of property; BGU 2, 648
(164 or 196), restitution of property and the transfer of the obligation of

88 The Administration oi Justice
Return of children and slaves wrongfully possessed
Lack of faithfulness on the part of those in whom some trust
had been reposed
Falsification of the records with intent to defraud®.
Payment of loans and redress against loans and other agreements
made under duress^.
Release from illegal detention®.
Personal insult and violence®.
Embezzlement’ .
Theft®.
Poisoning®.
com pulsory cultivation; P . Oxy. 12, 1468 (c. 258), concerning the ownership
of slaves, perhaps a question of inheritance is involved; P . Ryl. 2, 114
(c. 200), a widow petitions against the seizure of her flocks by a deca-
protus; P . R y l. 2, 302 (third century), concerning the seizure of pro­
p erty; P . Oxy. 17, 2133 (c. 299), the paternal uncle of the petitioner has
defrauded her of property left to her b y her intestate father, perhaps
prim arily a question of inheritance.
1 BGU, 4, 1139 (5 B. C.), parents wish the return of a girl who has
been abducted b y a slave; cf. Arch. 5 (1913), 39, 73; P . Oxy. 1, 38 (49/50),
against attem p ts to enforce a claim upon a child.
^ P . Oxy. 1, 71 (303), a wom an petitions against the tw o managers
of her estate; BOU, 7, 1578 (end of second or beginning of third century),
a veteran com plains th at his daughter, for whom he had made provision,
refused to care for him in his old age.
® S B , 6235— 5240 (14), a house and lot have been wrongfully
declared ownerless, b y one who claim s to have found no record of owner­
ship; P . Oxy. 7, 1032 (162), a charge against the assistant to the strategus
for alleged falsification in th e registration of a vineyard; P . Oxy. 12,
1469 (298), failure of an official to credit a village with the full am ount
of its labors on the dikes.
* S B , 5241 (12), perhaps addressed to the prefect against an attem pt
to evade th e paym ent of a loan; P . Bond. 2, 358, p. 171 (147/8), a bill
of sale and a loan made under pressure; P . Ross.-Oeorg. 2, 20 (c. 146),
failure to get paym ent after a court had decided that paym ent was to
be m ade; P . Oxy. 1, 71 (303), demand for the repaym ent of a loan; BGU,
2, 378 (second or third century), veteran sought redress against a note,
w hich he had signed under duress, upon the claim that a depositum had
been m ade to his father.
5 P . Bond. 2, 354, p. 163 (c. 10 B. C.); P S I , 7, 807 (280).
« S B , 6235 (12); P . R y l. 2, 77, 40 (192); Aegyptus 12 (1931), 129ff.,
a R om an veteran beaten by a strategus.
’ P . Oxy. 8, 1117 (c. 178), em bezzlem ent of gold in the m aking of a
statue.
* S B , 5235 (12), theft of a trough; Stud. 22, 55, theft of silver, clothing
and furniture.
® P . Oxy. 3, 486, 22 (131), poisoning.
Kinds of Petitions The Different Forms of the Subscriptio 89
l Ï Î U e r s were not the proper method o£
prefect in official matters, strategus, by
L i r o T l ' l e r r T a « te r ip iio to investigate a matter thus
presented to him®.
4. The Different Forms of the S u b s c r i p t io
The answer to petitions was given by means of a vTioygapij
" T V e Î e t t i o n l Î f r L t T e s e n t e d in the petition for hearing
and decision to another official was a common form of subscnptio.
î f t h i s case Vt began {r<P ôeln). The petitioner was usually
referred to the epistrategus®. The reason this was done may
become clearer by considering two cases In f
(162) we have a petition addressed to the prefect ·
m L L uL by two brothers who had failed to make registration
of the conversion of land from one form ° |
another Their failure to make a return was caused by the allep
C d rf a certeiu Dionysius, the assistant of the Sna- Th P
asked the prefect to direct the strategus to accept the belate
registration and to exact no further penalty. The prefect in h
endfrsem^^^^^^ them to the dioecetes. The dioecetes, when
appealed to, referred them to the epistrategus since the piesence
of Dionysius against whom they had
Now a petition as Mitteis has shown, had to be handed in pe
sonally and at a time appointed by the official addresse , m is
c a i thrperiod of the cLventus. That this petition was handed
in at the time of the conventus is also indicated by the fact that
L prefect delegated the case to the dioecetes -h ose powers o
Sdgm ^ to cases referred to him by the
i t fhe time of the conventus. The case could not be h j d ^ - t
the conventus since Dionysius was not presen .
17 (c. 113); Arch. 4 (1908), 386ff.: P . f 6« j™ l the
M im iS; S g m e n t , Arch. 2 ( 1 9 0 ^ 1 2 6 « ( 1 2 D ^ P ._ 0 .y . D , 2111 ( c 135).
' M i t S ’ ^cT'^Ges^Wiss. Beipz. 62 (1910), 100; Martin, Bes ÉpB
M itteis, P_ . to the epistrategus by m eans of
.stratèges, 1 ■ found in the following texts, — BGU,
358, p. t ’ t -P -p *^; ;; 2, 114 (c. 280); cf. P . Thead. 15 (280/1),
f n a i r n / o f Ï -tr ii? b e fo r e 4 e epistrateg^is as a result of the .ib .c n p P o
of the prefect to the petition found in P . Ryl. 2, 11 ·
 90 The Administration of Justice
merely a tnatter of summoning Dionysius from some nearby
place, the choecetes would have heard the case. It was, therefore,
referred to the epistrategus who could hear the case at some time
after the c(,nventus and in a place, no doubt the nome in which
the petitioners lived, Avhere Dionysius would be readily available.
In another instance reported in P. Oxy. 3, 486 (131), a case
of poisoninj^ and fraud in connection with the ownership of certain
property, had been heard by the epistrategus apparently in the
nome in wlûch the parties who were involved lived. He did not
render a decision, however, but referred the case for hearing
before the prefect in Alexandria. The plaintiff failed to appear
before the Court. Thereupon the defendant appealed to the prefect
for permission to leave the city and to attend to her property
which was Ijeing injured by the rise of the Nile. In a subscriptio
the prefect referred her to the epistrategus for permission to
leave. The epistrategus ivas in Alexandria also, attending to the
business of the conventus in the suite of the prefect, for the woman
now petitioned him for permission to depart and repair the damage
done by th^ floods and to have her case heard by him επί των
τόπων 1 . 16. it seems clear, then, that we must distinguish between
cases referred to the epistrategus for hearing at the conventus,
entirely analogous to the cases of delegation to other officers
of the prefect’s retinue, and those referred to him for hearing at
other times on his administrative trips through the nomes. The
reason petitioners were usually referred to the epistrategus for
a hearing of their cases, was not merely because he was the chief
administrative officer under the prefect, but apparently because
he was the only officer who could conduct trials both at the time
of the conventus and at other times in the nomes of his admini­
strative district 1. In the case of delegation to other officials we
may be sure that the trials were held at the time of the conventus.
Other officers to whom the hearing of cases was delegated by
the prefect besides the dioecetes^ and the epistrategus, were the
archidicaste.i3 ^ the iuridicus^, the idiologus®, military officers®,
the strategbg7 ^ a procurator of the emperor®, and a Tiberius
^ M artin, Épistratèges, 157— 171. — ^ p Q^y 7^ JQ32 (162).
" B G U , 1, 114 (133— 35): BGU, 1, 136; P . Oxy. 3, 471, 141— 54;
c/. W ilcken, ^rch. 3 (1906), 117.
B G U , 4, 1019, 9— 10 (middle of th e second century).
“ P . L eip z, 121, 6. — ·* C P R , 1, 18 (124).
. 361- (26. May, 184). The strategus referred the case to the
iundious. TI10 prefect R utilius Lupus delegated a case to the strategus
of the c ity ” g. of Alexandria, BGU, 3, 729; BOU, 3, 888.
* Meyer, P ap. 3 ( 11. N ov. 148).
The Different Forms of the Subscriptio 91
Claudius Sarapion, who heard a case involving inheritance, and
was also perhaps a procurator^.
The strategus seems not to have enjoyed full judicial power®,
as in the case of the other delegated judges. He might render
a decision, however, in accordance with instructions sent him by
the prefect. Thus in P. Oxy. 1, 37 (49) (c/. Meyer, Jur. Pap. p. 306)
tve find the strategus awarding a foundling child on the basis
of its facial resemblance to one of the claimants, “according to
that which had been decided by the lord prefect.”
In the next two forms of subscriptio, I follow Mitteis’ outline
in Ber. Ges. ITisa. Leipz. 62 (1910), 97 and 99.
2 . The subscriptio referred the case to a subordinate official,
usually the strategus, with an additional clause, dç, εάν τι της εμής
διαγνώσεως καταλάβη επ’ έμε άνάπεμψε^. In such cases, the
official delegated seems to have been empoAvered only to conduct
an investigation.
3. In two cases the subscriptio is so vague in expression that
it is almost meaningless. M itteis suggests two reasons for the
occurrence of these cases: either there was some irregularity in
the petition as, for example, a petition handed in at the time
of one conventus by a person belonging to a different conventus
district, or the prefect was not ready to have the case heard since
no opponent had appeared®.
4 . A fourth form of subscriptio occurred when the prefect took
action upon the request of the petitioner. To a request of a civis
Bomana for a guardian the endorsement was subjoined. Quo ne
ab {iusto tutore tutela) abeat, Pl{utammonem) s{upra) s{criptum) (?)
e leg{e) Jul{ia) et (Titia tutorem) do. LegP. A complete certificate
in the form of a diptychon granting a guardian to a woman in
Alexandria by the prefect reads: Q. Aemilius Saturninus, praef.
Aeg. postulante C. Terentio Serapammone Neviae Dionusario e
lege lulia et Titia et ex s. c. M. Julium Alexandrum, quo ne ab
iusto tutore tutela abeat, tutorem dedit. d. e. r. e. e. b. t. ss. followed
by the date®. To another request made in both Greek and Latin
^ S B , 5761 (91— 96); for Tiberius Claudius Sarapion, c/. P . O x y . 2,
364 (94); P . Bond. 2, 280, p. 133 (55). H e was, no doubt, a higher official
a t Alexandria. — ^ M itteis, Grundz. 39.
^ P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V 7 ; BOU, 3, 871, 10. W hether this last passage
refers to a subscriptio of the prefect is not clear.
® Of. BOU, 2, 614, 18— 19; P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V 3— 38.
® P . Oxy. 4, 720 (247); Meyer, Jur. P ap. 13.
® S B 2, 6223 (198). A suggested expansion of th e letters is found
in Aegyptus, 1 (1920), 141, descriptum· et recognitum ex exemplari biblio­
theca tabul . . . super scripto.
 92 The Administration of Justice
for the appointment of a guardian the prefect replied in a sub-
scriptio εί μή ’έχεις έτερον κυρίου δίκαιον, δν α\1τεΐ κύριον "i δίδθ}μι'^.
The prefect granted a request for bonoi'um possessio: ex eo, parte
edicti quae leqitimis heredibus bonorum possessionem daturum te
polliceris, by the subscriptio, ex ea parte edicti, recognovi, in another
case legi^. There is here, as has already been noticed, a reference
to the provincial edict of the prefect. Wilcken is, no doubt, correct
in explaining legi P. Oxy. 4, 720 (247); ibid. 9, 1201 (258) and
recognovi SB 1010 (249) as the signature of the prefect himself,
analogous to the rescripsi of the emperor®. The remainder of the
subscriptio was written by a clerk in the prefect’s office.
Octavius Valens, a civis Alexandrinus, and an active soldier,
petitioned the prefect for permission to enrol the eldest of his
three sons, born to him while he was in service, as a citizen of
Alexandria. The prefect Valerius Eudaemon in an endorsement
refused the request and at the same time made a ruling on the
status of his other two sons*.
5. In a fifth form of subscriptio, the prefect directed subordinates
to carry out his instructions in matters of administration. Thus
Sempronius Liberalis directed the basilicogrammateus concerning
a failure to make a required registration, “If they (the petitioners)
do not make the required registration within two months, they
are to be liable to that which has been decreed®.” A woman
applied to the prefect against a certain Hermias who had failed
to pa3?^the price of an article that he had purchased, although
a court had decided that he must pay. The prefect directed the
petitioner to the judge who had given the decision for the exe­
cution of his decree®.
Petitioners frequently requested the prefect to instruct an
officer to execute an order as the agent of the prefect. Thus a
veteran asked the prefect L. Munatius to compel the strategus
to open the will of his mother^. Certain cultivators of state lands
* P . Oxy. 12, 1466 (245).
- S B , 1010 (249); Meyer, Ju r. P a p . 27; P . Oxy. 9, 1201 (258).
® W ilcken, Hermes, 55 (1920), 28— 29; so E . W eiß, Studien, 142, and
O. Eger, Sav. Z. 32 (1911). Preisigke, Inschrift von Shaptoparene, pp. 20,
21, 25, thought th at the words, legi, recognovi, were written by the “Kanz-
leivorstoher” of the prefect and th at the prefect wrote ex edicto.
* BGU, 1, 114, col. IV 16— V 26 (26. Ang. 142).
" P . Land. 3, 1032 (162). — ® P . Ross.-Oeorg. 2, 20 (c. 146).
’ BGU, 2, 448 (second half of second century); c/. P . Bond. 2, p. 175
(third century), a petition to a strategus that a will be opened in his
presence “according to custom .”
The Different Forms of the Subscriptio 93
who were being illegally detained in prison asked the prefect to
instruct the strategus to release them^.
6. In his endorsement to a petition involving release from the
cultivation of government lands Mettius Rufus wrote, s[t] μεν
χοόνος έστίν, άηολύω. The investigation to determine whether
the condition had been met, and the execution of the order, were
left to a subordinate official, perhaps in this case to the strategus .
A decision made by subscriptio had the same validity as the oral
pronouncement of the prefect in a formal court session. In P. Byl.
2, 273 (176/7) the prefect T. Pactumeius Magnus by his endorse­
ment commanded the exaction of a certain sum of money within
six months.
The prefect as a general rule took the petition under advisemeiit
before giving an answer by endorsement. Following his subscriptio
we find one of two imperatives, προϋές or άποδος which directed
the publication of the document. Wilcken has undertaken a study
of these expressions and has decided that both have reference
to the same process, that of publication, by displaying the petitions,
together with the endorsement of the prefect®. The word άποδος
is here equivalent to the Latin ede. The petitioner received no
direct answer to his petition. It was necessary for him to make
a copy of the document with its endorsement and secure the
attestation of witnesses to certify to the correctness of the copy.
Such attested copies are extant, one made by the same individual
who wrote the original petition with the signatures of six witnesses.
The petition was displayed at Antinoe, no doubt, where the pre­
fect had rendered the decision, fifty miles from Oxyrhynchus
rvhere the petitioner lived*. The documents were not posted
singly but in groups. Before posting they were numbered by
the record office rvith the fitting indices, the number of the petition,
and the page number of the roll in which they were filed. In
P. Hamb. 18, cols. I and III (220 and 2 2 1 / 2 ) we find libelli attached
together in rolls containing the petitions of one-quarter year.
These may well have been rolls made by successively glueing
together parts of rolls that had been posted. What the period
1 P . Bond. 2, 354, p. 163 (c. 10 B. C.). — ^ p . j a n d . 53 (c. 96— 98).
* W ilcken, Hermes, 55 (1920), 28— 37; Arch. 9 (1930), 15 23.
* P . Oxy. 17, 2131 (207), a duplicate copy of a petition, which had been
posted" with the prefect’s subscriptio, together with the signatures of six
w itnesses. P . Aegyptus 12 (1931), 129ff. and BGU, 525 plus 970 are tw o
other exam ples of the same ty p e of docum ent which W dcken explains
as testationes of R om an law, but F . Bilabel, Aegyptus, 5 (1924), 153— 73
and 6 (1925), 93— 113 sees in this form an Egyptian invention which
was w idely dissem inated in the East.
 The Summons 95
94 The Administration of Justice
that what we have in this case “is not an evocatio i. e. an official
of propositio was, is not known. It has already been noticed that
summons, but only an officially transmitted private summons .
a minimum period for display of an edict of the prefect was thirty
It seems probable that favorable action on the part of the pre­
days (P. Oxy. 8 , 1 1 0 0 , 4) and this may have been the period for
fect or of a higher official upon the petition was necessary before
the rescripts of the prefects.
the strategus would undertake the service of a summons. It
hardly appears likely that anyone could summon his opponent
5. The Petition as a Means of Initiating a Trial
to trial by merely applying for the services of the strategus. Two
One of the functions of the petition was to lay before the prefect applications to the strategus for the service of a summons ex­
the circumstances giving rise to legal proceedings in his court. pressly state that the matter had been brought to the notice of
That a petition was expected and required at some time before the prefect and had received a favorable reply®, in three complete
the actual trial is indicated by the statement of an advocate applications there is no mention of previous recourse to the prefect®,
regarding his client in judicial proceedings before C. Septimius and three applications are preserved only in part^.
Vegetus (85—88). He said, “(My client) comes before you standing SB 5343 (182) indicates that in questions coming before offi­
in need of your beneficence, and is constrained to ask your pardon cials other than the prefect, favorable action on a petition was
since he was deceived in the matter of the petition, for he should necessary before an application for a summons could be made.
have given you a petition, as you desired, and we therefore beg In a subscriptio to the petition in this text the epistrategus directed
that you do not scourge him^.” That this was the purpose of that the complainant make application to the nomarch. The
requests in applications to other officials, namely, that the prefect petitioner then requested the nomarch to ask the strategus to
should be informed of the contents of the petition with a view summon the individual in question to the investigation. While
to later litigation in his court, is clear from the statement of a the summons in this case is not the officially transmitted private
veteran in a complaint made to the epistrategus, who asked that summons but the evocatio, it is significant for our purposes here
the present status of his case be made known to the prefect so to note that the application for the summons was not made until
that he might obtain his rights when the matter came up for trial the petition to the higher official had been favorably answered.
before the prefect^. Thus, too, in a petition to a strategus regar­ In a private letter, P. Jand. 8 (second century), a certain Sarapion
ding runaway slaves, the request was made that the slaves who told his friend that he had served a summons upon his opponent
had been recaptured should be carefully guarded and that the through the attendant of the archidicastes. The language here
prefect Julius Postumus (45—47/8) should be notified, “with would lead us to think not of citation, since the archidicastes
a view to the action that I shall take in his court in the proper did not himself give the summons, but of an officially transmitted
manner®.” private summons. The summons followed the delegation of the
case to the archidicastes by subscriptio of the prefect®. There is
6. The Summons
here another bit of evidence that the prefect had to be informed first
The exact procedure that was followed to initiate a trial after of the circumstances giving rise to litigation by means of a pe­
the petition had been acted upon by the prefect is not entirely tition, and had to act upon that petition by a subscriptio before
clear. a summons could be issued.
In the second century the responsibility for the summons to The effect of this summons was to place upon the parties in­
the trial at the conventus commonly lay in the hands of the plain­ volved the responsibility for appearing in the city where the con-
tiff. He applied to the strategus and asked that a copy of his
application be transmitted to the accused by an attendant of the 1 M itteis, Grundz. 36; P . Oslo, 19 (first century). On the court sum ­
strategus “in order that he may know that he is to be present m ons see M itteis, Hermes 30 (1895), 572ff.; idem, Her. Ges. Wiss. Leipz.
at the most sacred court of the prefect whenever he may make 62 (1910) 62__87; W enger, Rechtshistorische Papyrusstudien, 106ff.
his audit of the nome or give his judgment.” M itteis has remarked 2 P Land. 2, 358, p. 171 (c. 150); P . Amh. 81 (247).
3) B G U 1, 226 (99); P .O x y . 3, 484 (138); P . Teh. 2, 303 (176— 180).
* P . Teh. 434 (104); P · R oss.-Georg. 2, 27 (c. 161); P S I , 8, 941 (second
1 P . Flor. 1, 61, 14— 18 (86— 88). 2 B Ö V , 1, 195 (161). century). — ^ W ilcken, Arch. 6 (1920), 293ff.
=> P . Oxy. 2, 283 (45).
96 The Administration of Justice
ventus was held, and await the calling of the trial. Often a decla­
ration on oath was made to the strategus that an individual would
appear for trial in the prefect’s c o u r t S e c u r it y was also given
for appearance at a trial before the prefect^. The necessity for
assurance guaranteeing the appearance of the parties concerned
is apparent from frequent references to the failure of one of the
parties to appear. In the court records of the prefect Junius
Rufus (94—98) it was noted that one of the litigants failed to
respond when the case w'as called. The prefect turned to an un­
named individual, clearly the strategus, and asked him, “Did
you serve the summons?” He replied, “I served the summons
and sealed the tablets.” The prefect rejoined by asking the strate­
gus, “How can you prove that you served a summons since only
an untrustworthy witness (is present)®?”
A second method of summoning to court was by a citation
of the accused on the part of the judge before whom he was to
be tried^. The judge instructed the strategus to send the person
in question a summons to appear for trial within a given period.
In only one case do we have definite evidence that the prefect
employed this method. In P. Hamb. 1, 4 (30. March 87) we find a
promise on oath given, no doubt, to a subordinate of the prefect,
that the person in question would appear in Alexandria to answer
a complaint of a soldier stationed there. The soldier had appar­
ently handed in a petition to the prefect C. Septimius Vegetus,
who had instructed the strategus to cite the individual against
whom complaint had been made to Alexandria and take an affi­
davit from him to assure his appearance there. Such a summons
was known as evocatio litteris ad magistratum datis. The references
given by M itteis, Orundz. 37, note 3, do not apply to evocatio, by
the prefect®. The iuridicus, the archidicastes, and the epistrategus
^ P . Oxy. 12, 1456 (284— 86); c/. similar declarations, P . Oxy. 2, 260
{59);ibid. 9, 1195 { U 5 ) ; ib i d . 10, 1258 (45); BOU, 3, 891; P . Leipz. 52, 53;
P .H a m b . 1, 4 (30. Mar. 87).
2 P . Oxy. 8, 1121 (295); P . Oxy. 2, 294, 23 (22).
^ P . Hamb. 1, 29.
* P . Oxy. 14, 1667 (third century); P . Oxy. 3, 486 (131); P . Hamb.
1, 29 (under Dom itian).
® P . Bond. 2, p. 152, 4— 6 (141), a higher official, perhaps the iuridicus;
P . Qiss. 1, 34 (265/6); c/. P . Oxy. 2, 281, 23— 25, a report to the archi­
dicastes asking for a citation; P . Bond. 2, p. 149, 12ff., Seppius Kufus,
the idiologus, in a letter to the centurion asked the latter, the strategus,
and th e basilicogram m ateus to conduct an investigation and give their
decision at the conventus. The idiologus added, “I have summoned
Satabous (the defendant) to be present at that tim e” .
The Summons 97
enjoyed the right of citation^. Citation by a higher magistrate
was made through the agency of the strategus®.
Another method of issuing a summons to the court of the prefect
is brought to view in P. Hamb. 1 , 29 (time of Domitian)®. The
document is an excerpt from the court records of Mettius Rufus.
In it we have a clear reference to summons by means of an edict,
evocatio edicto. The names of those who were to be summoned
before the prefect were publicly posted. In his commentary
M eyer suggests that the summonses were those resulting from
petitions handed in by different individuals. While no other
evidence than that here presented can be adduced, the form of
summons by edict seems peculiarly appropriate to the prefect.
Several individuals failed to respond on the dies peremptorius.
The prefect directed the herald to announce that the absent
litigants would be summoned again and that if they did not re­
spond, the case would go against them by default, edictum peremp-
torium unum pro omnibus'^. After the herald had made his procla­
mation, the advocate spoke on behalf of his clients and excused
their non-appearance saying that they could not take part in the
trial before they had received the “official papers” from their
guardians since they were minors. His request that the explanation
be incorporated into the records and that his clients be exempt
from the action of the edictum peremptorium was granted by
the prefect. A similar form of summons was employed under the
Ptolemies®.
’ Martin, Bes Epistrateges, 1 6 3 ff.; S B 5343 (182).
2 Arc/t. 4(1908), 386 (c. U 8 ) ; P . O x y . 1, 71 (303); c/. Arc7i. 7 (1924), 223.
2 Meyer, P . Hamb. 1, pp. 123—-26.
^ Herm og., Dig. 42, 1, 53, 1; U lpian, Dig. 5, 1, 68— 73; Meyer, Jur.
P ap. 85.
® Meyer, Jur. P ap. 79; M itteis, Chrest. 29, on P . Tor. 13 (147 B. C.).
Reinmuth, Th e P r e f e c t of E g y p t

CHAPTER X
TH E CO NVENTUS
The judicial functions of the prefect were, as a general rule,
exercised at definite times and at regularly appointed places.
In Egypt, as in other provinces, it was customary for the prefect
to hold his court, cmventum agere, for a given circuit in a place
more or less convenient for that district. Reference to this work
of the prefect was commonly made in the following fashion,—
δπον εάν τον τοϋ νομοϋ διαλογισμόν η δικαιοδοσίαν ποιήται, Ρ 8Ι,
8 , 941, 9—10 (second century), P.Lond. 2, ρ. 172, 19f. (150); or
simply δταν ό κράτιστος ήγεμών . . . τον τον νομοϋ διαλογισμόν
ποιήται, BGU, 1, 226 (99). At the conventus the prefect
carried out work of two kinds. He made an audit of the
financial affairs of the nomes which is expressed in the word
διαλογισμός which means, “balancing of accounts” or “revision,
audit.” This audit had for its particular purpose a check upon
the receipts of revenue, as well as upon all expenditures and
business ventures generally which might affect the tax-paying
ability of the nomes. It was in preparation for the conventus
that Sulpicius Similis (107—112) requested that the strategus
send to him a report of the financial condition of Hermopolis^.
At the close of the strategus’ term of office, the prefect made
an audit of his accounts^. An official was dismissed because of
some dereliction of duty by the prefect Vibius Maximus at the
conventus held in Memphis®. In PSI, 1, 103 (end of the second
century) we find that the report of the topogrammateus to his
superior regarding the sums of overdue taxes was postponed until
the time of the conventus. The principal business of the prefect
at the conventus was, no doubt, this administrative phase of his
work to which we find comparatively few references in our sources
because it concerned the official administration of the country
1 P . Amh. 64, 14 (107). — 2 D itt. 0 0 1 8 , 669, 35.
* P . Amh. 65 (early second century).
The Conventus 99
and had little direct contact with the personal affairs of the people.
In speaking of the magnitude of the prefect’s responsibilities in
Egypt, Philo lays principal stress upon this phase of his work
και ταϋτα ου δικάζοντας (τούς ηγεμόνας) μόνον, άλλ.ά καΐ λογισμούς
των προσόδων και δασμών λαμβάνοντας ών ή εξέτασις τόν πλείονα
τοϋ ενιαντοϋ χρόνον άνήλισκεν^.
In addition to his examination of the accounts of the nomes
at the time of the conventus, the prefect made frequent tours
of inspection throughout Egypt. W ilcken points out that the
prefect, even when holding office for a longer period of time, made
the journey to Upper Egypt, as a rule, but once and usually during
the first conventus circuit®. The purpose seems to have been to
give the new prefect a familiarity with his province immediately
upon taking up his duties as governor. W ilcken compares the
action of Cicero who, upon his arrival in Cilicia, held court in
five different tovms in various parts of the province, but later
conducted the judicial business from Laodicea alone®. On a trip
to Upper Egypt on 4. March, 220, Geminius Chrestus, who had
assumed the prefecture the year before, gave a receipt for supplies
for his retinue*
*. In a private letter a man informed his correspon­
dent that he was going to Coptus with the prefect®. The move­
ments of the prefect were of interest to the people and occasional
references to them are found in private letters. A son wrote to
his father that he was going to Pelusium with the prefect, where
the latter was perhaps planning to hold the conventus®. Thus,
too, we have a letter sent to a strategus who was with the pre-
fecf^, and other letters in which mention was made of the
movements of the prefect®. In P. Hamb. 1, 8 6 (second century)
we have a letter from a woman to her husband urging him to
hurry and be present at a certain place before the prefect should
arrive so that they might “counsel a little together.”
Although in its primary sense διαλογισμός referred to the ad­
ministrative aspects of the prefect’s work, it was commonly applied
also to the judicial activity of the prefect which was carried out
at the same time, and which from the viewpoint of the people
was the principal purpose of the conventus.
^ Philo, I n Place. 133.
^ W ilcken, Arch. 6 (1920), 375; OIL, 3, nos. 31, 35, 37, 141472.
^ W ilcken, Arch. 4 (1908), 367; c/. Cic., A d Alt. 5, 21, 9.
■* Raccolto Lumbroso, 319ff.
^ P . Oxy. 3, 529 (second century).
* BO V , 1, 93, 33. — ’ P . Oxy. 6, 931 (second century).
2 P . Oxy. 6, 967 (second century); BOU, 4, 1078 (17. June, 39).
7*

100 The Conventus
1. Place and Time of the Conventus
W ilck en ’s treatment of the conventus will always remain basic
for the study of the court of the prefect^. He was the first to
show that the conventus was regularly held in three cities,—
Pelusium for the eastern Delta including the Tanite nome, the
Sethrite nomes, and Arabia; Alexandria for the western Delta;
the city of Memphis for the Thebaid and the Heptanomia^. The
various districts were not, however, always cited to the same
city for the conventus.
No doubt there was a dixaar^jQiov at Memphis and Pelusium
similar to that which is attested at Alexandria® and which served
as a permanent court building for the holding of the conventus.
There is definite evidence that in the second century, and perhaps
later, a conventus was held in Arsinoe^, if not regularly at least
occasionally. A conventus was held by M. Petronius Mamertinus
in Coptus in the year 134 as is evidenced by the record of a trial
held there by the archidicastes, who received the case by dele­
gation from that prefect®. A private letter referred to a conventus
conducted in Xois®.
It was apparently customary for the prefect to issue an edict
aimouncing the various places where the conventus was to be
held and more particularly at which of the cities the various
circuits should appear for the conventus. The itinerary of the
prefect in P. Oxy. 4, 709 (c. 50) formed the basis of W ilck en ’s
studies on the conventus’. As he reconstructs it the prefect trav­
eled by sea from Alexandria to Pelusium, conducted the conventus
there, sailed to Memphis and held the conventus for the Thebaid
and the Heptanomia, and finally returned to Alexandria to con­
duct the conventus for the western Delta. We may hold with
Wilcken that the edict of M. Petronius Mamertinus in P. Byl.
2 , 7 4 (133) was a later modification of his original edict announcing
the circuit of the conventus. Mamertinus stated in the edict
that there remained insufficient time to carry out his plan of
making a trip “to Coptus” and likewise finishing the business
of the conventus which he was then holding, so that the former
purpose had to be given up. It has been noticed that Mamertinus
1 W ilcken, Der Ä gyptische K onvent. Arch. 4 (1908), 315— 422.
2 Ibid. 377. — ^ P . Oxy. 3, 471, 110.
‘ W ilcken, 1. c. 399; BGU, 3, 908 (101/2).
^ W ilcken, Arch. 6 (1920), 375; cf. BGU, 1, 114, col. I 14ff.; C I L 3, 44.
® P . R yl. 2, 434 (second century).
’ W ilcken, Arch. 4 (1908), 378/9; Arch. 3 (1906), 312, “the hand m ay
equally well be from the age of Vespasian” ; cf. Meyer, Jur. P ap. p. 283.
Place and Time of the Conventus 101
visited Coptus in the following year (134) and held a conventus
there. We have a reference to the proclamation of the conventus
in BGU 1, 12 (181).
It may be that the prefect’s itinerary for the conventus was
announced in a letter addressed to the strategi, or if, as we assume,
the proclamation took the form of an edict, it may have been
supplemented by a letter to the strategi, for a communication
of this kind is made in a letter of Subatianus Aquila with the re­
quest that it be publicly posted “so that all may know^.
For the determination of the time at which the conventus was
held, a thorough study of the material at hand will be necessary.
From a consideration of the documents available in 1908, W ilcken
tentatively suggested the following approximation for the time
of the conventus,—January for Pelusium, January to April
for Memphis, June to August for Alexandria. Inspection trips
were made, Wilcken thinks, after the conventus held in Memphis,
in the latter part of February and in March®.
At the conventus the nomes were admitted to the court of the
prefect in an order which was announced in advance and which
perhaps varied from year to year. It was considered an honor
to receive early consideration. It was counted a mark of favor
that the inhabitants of Oxyrhynchus were granted first entrance
to the court after those of Pelusium when the emperors Severus
and Caracalla held court in Egypt®. The villages of the several
nomes seem to have been treated in the same way, so that not
only were the financial affairs reviewed by the prefect but all
cases originating in a given village were taken up as a group
before the litigation from the following village was admitted to
the court^.
The disposition of the circuits pertaining to each conventus city
Avas not fixed. The Heptanomia, for example, were cited to
appear once at Memphis, and at another time in Alexandria®.
Appearance at the court of the prefect involved great incon­
venience for many of the inhabitants of Egypt. It Avas necessary
in some cases to travel long distances to the place of the conventus,
and since the summons did not state the exact day of the trial
it was necessary for the litigants to be present from the very
beginning of the conventus and stay until the calling of the trial®.
Sickness or other reasons often necessitated the appointment of*
^ P S I , 10, 1148 (4. Jan. 210). — “ W ilcken, Arch. 4 (1908), 416— 20.
3 P . O x y . ’ i , 705, 36— 39 (199— 200).
* P . Jand. 53, col. II 4; ibid. col. I l l 1 (90— 98).
‘ W ilcken, Arch. 4 (1908), 396. — “ M itteis, Grundz. 36.
102 The Conventus
a legal representative^. To one who pleaded the necessary work
of measuring grain as an excuse for not appearing, and who cited
the edict of Subatianus Aquila, which sent those who were in
Aexandria to their nomes at the time of the harvest, the dioecetes
replied that while it was fitting to obey the edict of the prefect,
nevertheless, it would be necessary for him to appear at Alexandria
for the triaP. Adjournments and delays in trials were frequent
and litigation often extended over many years, one official passing
the case to another®.
2. Judges
The prefect alone enjoyed full judicial competence in all classes
of cases, both civil and criminal. The right to exercise iurisdictio
voluntaria, as well as the grant of the imperium was given to the
prefect by Augustus**. Pleas could be addressed to him directly
or after a preliminary investigation by lower officials. The evi­
dence at present available fully bears out W ilck en ’s contention
that the prefect alone was empowered to hold the conventus®.
Individual cases could be delegated but the conduct of the con­
ventus as a whole was undertaken only by the prefect in person.
Thus Philo says of Placcus that he decided all suits in conjunction
with the magistrates®.
Associated with the prefect in the conduct of the business of
the conventus were the higher officials from Alexandria,—the
juridicus, the idiologus, the dioecetes, the archidicastes, and the
procurator usiacus, as well as the epistrategi, the strategi, and the
royal scribes.
The large number of trials coming before the court of the prefect
were heard only in part by the prefect. The majority, perhaps,
were heard by the other officials associated with him, by dele­
gation, e’i avojiofiTirjg, of the prefect. They exercised full judicial
power in the cases assigned to them. As judges in trials heard
at the conventus we find the juridicus, the idiologus, the dioecetes,
the archidicastes, the epistrategus and other civil officials of uncer­
tain rank, as well as military officers’.
The prefect sometimes refused to grant a judge. A woman
applied for a depositum from the estate of a deceased soldier. The
1 P . Oxy. 1, 97 (115/6); P . Oxy. 4, 726 (135).
2 P . Flor. 1, 6 (23. Ju ly, 210).
® Philo, I n Place. 29; S B , 5239 (14).
* Modest, Dig. 40, 2, 21; Tac., A nn. 12, 60.
^ W ilcken, Arch, 4 (1908), 406/7. — ^ Philo, I n Place. 1.
’ CJ. p. 90.
Judges Preliminary Investigation 103
prefect declared the depositum a concealed dowry and concluded,
“If you ask for a dowry and I grant a judge, it would appear
as if I believed there were a legal marriage*.”
3. Preliminary Investigation
The strategus was directed by the prefect Longaeus Rufus to
investigate the complaint of the father of Dionysia®. He accused
his daughter of defrauding him at the instigation of her husband
Horion. The strategus summed up the issue of the case together
with a report of the keepers of the records and sent it to the suc­
cessor of Rufus, Pomponius Faustianus. Hionysia, the daughter,
also presented her claim to the latter in writing. Faustianus
refused to re-open the case and referred the matter back to the
strategus directing that it be settled on the basis of the original
instructions of Longaeus Rufus. The strategus then decided that
Rufus had given no instructions on the point raised by Dionysia’s
father and again sent the case back to the prefect. The ultimate
decision was that Dionysia present a complete account of the
involved case in writing to the prefect, which resulted in the well-
known petition of Dionysia. In other instances we find the strategus
investigating criminal cases, arson®, embezzlement on the part of
a subordinate*, and murder®. The strategus was commonly en­
trusted with the preliminary investigation which sometimes, as
we have seen, took the form of a trial®. In all these cases the
strategus apparently made no definite decision but acted only as
an agent to prepare the case for the court of the prefect.
The decision rendered in the court of the prefect was executed
by the strategus. Thus in the case of an old man who had suffered
violence and fraud, the prefect after hearing him directed the
strategus to see to it that the old man receive full compensation
if violence had been used’.
Except for appeal to the emperor, the decision of the prefect
was final. Appeals might be made from the decisions of other
judges®. As has been noted Julius Alexander in an edict ordained
that if one prefect had rendered a decision concerning a remission
of taxes no further question was to be raised on that point, and
1 BGÜ, 1, 114, col. I 5— 13 (5. Jan. 117).
= P . Oxy. 2, 237 (186). — = BGU, 1, 163.
^ P . Amh. 81 (247). — = P· Amh. 66 (124).
« P . Thead. 15 (280/1); P . F ay . 119, 11 (c. 100).
’ P . Strass. 5 (262); c/. P S I , 4, 281, 35ff.
« P . Teb. 287, 12ff. (161— 169).
 /f
104 The Conventus Court Procedure 105

if two prefects had passed upon the same thing, the eclogistes lex (P)laetoria was pleaded by a woman in a case against the
who brought the matter up a third time was to be punished^. Decisions of the prefect and other judges, letters and
legal opinions of the prefect were read in court®. That the rescripts
of the emperors were loosely quoted (and the same was undoubtedly
4. Court Procedure true of the other forms of evidence cited) is indicated by a rescript
The form of procedure in the court session was doubtless much of the emperor forbidding the quoting of false rescripts®.
like that of the Roman provincial court elsewhere. During the
trial the prefect sat upon the tribunal surrounded by his assessores. 1 P . Oxy. 17, 2111 (c. 135).
® P . Preis. 1 (second century), a decision of the iuridicus, and a letter
Since the prefect was not, as a rule, a legally trained man he had of M. Petronius Honoratus (147/8): P S I , 4, 281 (107— 112), an opinion
need of expert legal counsel, especially in Egypt, where native law, of the prefect Sulpicius Similis; P . Jand. 53 (96 98), a decision of the
Greek law were practised side by side^ and Jewish courts had com­ prefect M ettius R ufus and the prefect Septim ius V egetus; BGU, 1, 114,
col. V l l f f . , a decision of the prefect Avidius Heliodorus; P . Amh. 80
petence in certain matters®. After the hearing of the case in which
(232/3), a decision of the prefect Maevius Honoratianus.
the parties concerned were usually represented by advocates, the ® P . Amh. 27 (Diocletian or M aximianus); cf. M itteis, Chrest. 380
prefect arose from the tribunal and retired for consultation with and th e literature cited there.
oi ev avfi^ovXiqj (cf. P. Ryl. 75, col. II, second century) or assesscrres,
P. Oxy. 17, 2 1 1 1 , 1 0 (c. 135) and P. Teh. 2 , 386 (c/. Arch. 3 [1906],
59 [123]), after which he returned and pronounced his decision
from the tribunal^. An edict of the prefect Proculus regulated in
some manner the judicial procedure®.
There are numerous references to, and copies from the official
court records, vnoyvruj.axiayoi, of the prefects®.
The kinds of evidence cited in the petitions to the prefect and
admitted in his court were various. Rescripts of the emperors
were frequently cited^. In the petition of Dionysia, edicts of the
prefects, judicial decisions of the prefects, of an epistrategus, of
a juridicus, and the legal opinion of a lawyer were cited®. The
1 D itt. OGIS, 669, 35.
^ Gf. Fr. Zucker, Beiträge zur K enntnis der Geriohtsorganisation
im ptolem äisohen und römischen Ä gypten. Phil. Supplem. Bd. 12
(1912), 114— 122.
® E . R . Goodenough, The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt.
N ew H aven and London, 1929.
^ Arch. 5 (1913), 232, 33; Arch. 3 (1906), 79, note 5; c/. also P . Chic. 29,
col. I l l 2 (c. 150); BGÜ, 1, 288, 15.
® BGU, 1, 288.
® BG U , 1, 329 (prior to 152); P . Teh. 562 (c. 132— 35); P . Teh. 569
(167— 176), conventus in Arsinoe; P . Teh. 489 (c. 127); S B , 5693 (186)
P . Teh. 492 (late first or early second century); P . Amh. 67 (c. 232)
Stud. 20, 60, p. 51 (243— 49); P S I , 5, 450 (second or third ceAtury)
P S I , 4, 293 (third century).
’ P . Oxy. 7, 1020 (198— 201); P . Strass. 1, 22 (first half of third cen­
tury); cf. P . P a y . 322 (second century); P . Oxy. 12, 1504 (late third
century), a report of judicial proceedings before the prefect in which he
referred to the emperors and their enactm ents.
® P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V III 21— 43, 4 3 ff.; ibid. col. V II 29— 38, col.
V III 2; ibid. col. V III 2— 7.
 f
CHAPTER X I
C IV IL JU R IS D IC T IO N
The chief categories of cases heard by the prefect will be given
together with the decision of the prefect. It will be convenient in
this connection to sum up also the jurisdiction of the prefect in
questions of private law^.
1. Inheritance
Tlie prefect was frequently called upon to decide questions of
inheritance. It has already been noted that the prefect granted
ex edicto applications for bonorum 'possessio. In a case delegated
to the commander of a squadron of cavalry by the prefect Haterius
Nepos, the judge decided in accordance with Egyptian law that
a son bom of an illegal marriage did not have the right to make
a will disposing of his property while his father was still living
The prefect Petronius Mamertinus decided a case of succession
among Egyptians in accordance with native law®.
The legality of the marriage contracted by a soldier determined
the rights of Succession which his family might enjoy. A large
papyrus preserves a collection of decisions by the prefects regarding
the effect of soldier marriages upon the disposition of their pro­
perty**. M. Rutilius Lupus decided against a certain woman who
asked for the payment of a depositum from the estate of a deceased
soldier, declaring the depositum a concealed dowry. Since the
marriage of soldiers was not legal the dowry was caduca^. The
1 On th e application of R om an law in E gyp t see R . Tanbens-ililag,
Geschichte der R ezeption des römischen R echtes in Ä gypten. Studi
Bonfante 1, 367— 440 ; A. J . Boyes, Le droit romain et les papyrus d’E gypte.
L'Egypte Contemporaine, 20 (1929), 529— 559.
C P R , 1, 18. — ä BGU, 1, 19.
* P . Cattaoui and BGU, 1, 114, te x t b y Grenfell and H unt and com m en­
tary b y Meyer, Arch. 3 (1906), 57ff.
^ ibid. col. I 5— 13 (5. Jan. 117).
Inheritance 107
same prefect decided that the son of citizens of Alexandria, bom
to them while the father was in the army, was liable to the
payment of the inheritance tax since he was not a legitimate
son*. In another decision he laid down the principle that sons
born to a Roman citizen who married a civis Romana while he
was a soldier could not be recognized as legitimi. They were,
however, Roman citizens and their father as pater naturalis,
could make them heirs but only extranei heredes^. In a letter
addressed by Hadrian to the prefect Rammius Martialis, the
emperor recognized the principle laid down by his predecessors
that marriages of soldiers w'ere illegal and that children born
to such unions could not be legal heirs but suggested that the
stringency of this regulation be relaxed by permitting the children
of soldiers to inherit έξ εκείνου τοϋ /ιε[ρ]ους τοΰ διατάγματος, ου
και τοΐς προσ[γ]ένονς συνγενέσι δίδοται, an obvious reference to the
unde cognati of the praetorian edict®. The prefect applied Roman
law to the soldiers of the auxiliary troops in matters of inheri­
tance*.
Petitions concerning questions of inheritance Avere addressed to
the prefect and trials concerning the rights of succession in the
case of soldiers and civilians alike were conducted by him®. The
particular interest of the prefect in questions of inheritance before
2 1 2 may be ascribed to the importance of the revenues from the
inheritance tax, and in the case of soldiers, to the question of
status involved.
In P. Amh. 12 (246) we have a declaration of an inheritance
for the vicesima hereditatum in which the statement was made that
the succession had previously been announced to the prefect.
The laws and the judgments of successive unnamed procurators
and prefects Avere referred to as santioning the division of a Avoman’s
property betAveen the the child of her first marriage and the two
1 Ibid. col. IV 1— 15 (4. June, 115).
2 Ibid. col. I l l 11— 22 (24. Oct. 114). — ^ BGU, 1, 140 (119).
^ P . Mich. 1320 (under Claudius or Nero), Τ Α Ρ Α , 55 (1924), 21ft.
^ B G U 1, 327 (166), p etition for th e paym ent of a legacy from the
R om an w ill of a veteran; BGU, 1, 161 (c. 150— 153), a petition of a veteran
regarding the opening of his parents’ w ill; BGU, 3, 823 (c. 178), petition
concerning inheritance; BGU, 2, 613 (under Antoninus Pius), petition
concerning inheritance; P . Lond. 2, 177, p. 167 (40/1), petition concerning
inheritance; P S I , 4, 293 (third century), judicial proceedings; P . Oxy.
8, 1102 (146), judicial proceedings; P . Goodsp. 29, Dec. Publ. U. of Chic.
5’ p 29 (c 150), judicial proceedings; P . Bad. 72 (under Hadrian), judicial
proceedings; cf. BGU, 2, 614» (c. 216), a petition b y a veteran concerning
inheritance.
108 Civil Jurisdiction
children of her second marriage, in stirpes and not in capita in
a deposition made prior to a suit concerning the matter
In Egypt the prefect had nothing to do with the division of
inheritance which took place by private agreement^.
The gnomon of the idiologus prescribed that it was unlawful
for a Roman to write a will in Greek®. An edict of Severus Alex­
ander later permitted Roman citizens to use the Greek language
in making a wilR.
2. Manumission of Slaves
The gnomon of the idiologus provided that a slave manumitted
by vindicta of the prefect was to be considered the same as one
who had been freed after reaching the age of thirty years®. In
the Digests we find, apud praefectum Aegypti possum servum manu-
mittere ex constitutione divi Augusti^. Commonly, however, manu­
mission took place by simple purchase from the master and the
procedure kann keine Wurzel im Reichsrecht haben. Die Praxis
war schon längst in hellenistischen Provinzen verbreitef.
3. Patria Potestas
Chaeremon, the father of Dionysia, adduced an Egyptian law
to justify his intention forcibly to separate his daughter from her
husband. The prefect Flavius Titianus refused to uphold Chaeremon
in the exercise of paternal potestas and in the words of the epi-
strategus Paconius Felix “the prefect did not give heed to the
inhumanity of the law®.” The prefect here followed the practise
of the praetors at Rome when the father sought to use his potestas
to break up a marriage that did not meet with his favor. Patria
potestas was not interpreted in its strict Roman sense in Egypt,
although references to it are found in the papyri®“. The adoption
of a child, for example, in Egypt was a purely private matter
and the forms prescribed by Roman law were not complied with.*
1 P . R yl. 2, 76. — " P . Oxy. 14, 1638 (282).
BG U , 5, 8; c/. W ilcken, Arch. 7 (1924), 101.
* S B , 5294, 13 (235); Stud. 20, 35 (prior to 235).
5 BGU, 5, 21. — ® Modest, Dig. 40, 2, 21.
’ Arch. 3 (1906), 252— 256; P . Oxy. 1, 48— 50 (86— 100); P . Oxy. 9,
1205 (291); cf. M itteis, Chrest. 362; P . Oxy. 3, 494 (156).
8 P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V II 34 (186).
* U lp ., Dig. 43, 30, 1 and 5; M itteis, Arch. 1 (1901), 343/4.
P . Oxy. 10, 1268, 9 (third century), a woman registering property
is described as νπο χειρί; cf. Tanbenschlag, Patria Potestas, Sav. Z. 38
(1917), 172— 230; M itteis, Grundz. 274/5.
Restitutio in Integrum lus Trium Liberorum 109
The intervention of the prefect was not necessary and there was
no question of the constitution of patria potestas.
Subjoined to a request addressed to the prefect was the copy
of an emancipation act of a filius familias. The emancipatio o
this document differs from the Roman form in that the first and
second mancipatio were followed by remancipatio rather t lan y
manumission by the fiduciarius as in Roman practise .
4. Restitutio in Integrum
In two rescripts of Severus and Caracalla, the emperors assured
the individuals addressed that they were entitled to the protection
of the Lex {P)laetoria and restitutio in integrum, provided that
they could prove their minority in the court of the prefect. The
rescripts were quoted in a petition addressed to the prefect .
5. Longi Temporis Praescriptio
A rescript of the same emperors defining the longi temporis
praescriptio was posted in Alexandria®. This rescript together with
the decisions of the several prefects was incorporated into a single
papyrus It provided that the possessor of a thing legally acquired
was protected against the claims of a person living in the same
nohQ (nome) after ten years, and from claims of persons living
elsewhere after twenty years. A decision of the prefect Subatianus
Aquila of 13. March, 207 was made in accordance with this rescript.
Mettius Rufus compared the provisions of the longi tem^ris
praescriptio for Egypt with the Roman practise of usucapio,—
“among us” i. e. Romans, “the period of a year is sufficient,
wdiich was true in the case of mobilia. Immoveable property
required two years®.
6. lus Trium Liberorum
After 212 the prefect was frequently addressed by women who
desired his sanction to act without a guardian by the ius trium
vel quattuor liberorum.. The applicant’s ability to write was often
mentioned as a factor in making the grant .
In v. no. 136; Meyer, J%ir. P ap. 9; Girard, Textes^ p. 324.
P O x i 7, 1020 ( 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 ) . — => BG U , 1, 267 (199).
* P . Strass. 22 (first half of third century); M itteis, Chrest. 374; Bruns,
Ji’onies ,^192, (263); Meyer, Jur. P ap. 14; P . R y l. 2, 165 (266),
Julia, a daughte’r of a prefect of E gyp t, acts w ithout a guardian by virtue
of the ius trium liberorum in a sale of land.
 110 Civil Jurisdiction
7. Guardians
T h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f g u a r d ia n s f o r w o m e n u n d e r t h e Lex Julia
et Titia, Avhich e m p o w e r e d g o v e r n o r s o f p r o v in c e s t o n a m e a
g u a r d ia n in t h e a b s e n c e o f a le g a l o r t e s t a m e n t a r y g u a r d ia n , la y
in t h e h a n d s o f t h e p r e f e c t s T h e p r e f e c t a lo n e w a s e n t i t l e d to
n a m e g u a r d ia n s f o r R o m a n w o m e n b e fo re 212^. T h e a c tu a l
a p p o i n t m e n t o f g u a r d ia n s f o r peregrinae b e fo re 2 1 2 a n d f o r pere-
grinae a n d R o m a n w o m e n b o th , a f t e r 212 m i g h t b e c a r r ie d o u t
b y t h e exegete® , t h e p r y ta n is ^ , a n d t h e stra te g u s® . A p e r m is s iv e
e d ic t e n t r u s t i n g t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f tutores ad actum f o r w o m e n
t o lo w e r o ffic ia ls a n d is s u e d b y t h e p r e f e c t F la v iu s T itia n u s
(126—32) is m e n tio n e d i n P. Ryl. 2 , 120 (167). E v e n a f t e r 2 1 2
t h e a p p lic a tio n f o r t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f a g u a r d i a n f o r w o m e n ,
s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n m a d e t o t h e p r e f e c t, w h o b y h is e n d o r s e m e n t
i n s t r u c t e d t h e s t r a t e g u s t o e x e c u te t h e a c t u a l a p p o in tm e n t® .
In an edict of the year 287, the prefect Flavius Valerius Pom-
peianus ordained that orphans were to have guardians appointed
by those competent to make the appointment. The reason for
the edict was to facilitate the processes of business which were
being delayed because orphans were unattended by guardians or
curatores"^. In a record of judicial proceedings regarding the
guardianship of minor children the decision was given, no doubt,
in accordance Λvith the edict just mentioned, dent pupillis tutorem
sive curatorem et satis datione completa denuntiata^.
In P. Jand. 36 (third century) we have a receipt given by the
tutor of a girl to the procurator of Philadelphia for wheat received
“by order of the prefect®.” The appointment of a φροντιστής by
the prefect is indicated in another text^®.
^ Gaius, Inst. 1, 185, 195.
2 P . Oxy. 2, 273, 5— 6 (95); S B , 6223 (198); M itteis, Sav. Z. 29 (1909),
402; Grenfell, Bodleian Quarterly Record (1919), 258ff. (198).
® P . Teh. 239, 3— 5 (139); ihid. 397, 4 (139).
* BOU, 4, 1084, 13— 15. — = P. R yl. 2, 120, 17f. (167).
* H . A. Sanders, Aegyptua, 13 (1933) 169— 175 (236); P . Teh. 326
(266); P . Oxy. 12, 1466 (245); W ilcken, Arch. 3 (1906), 313; M itteis,
Sav. Z. 25 (1901), 774, 5.
’ P . Oxy. 6, 888 (287); Grenfell and H unt interpret επίτροπος as
tutor, i. e. for a child below the age of puberty; κονράτωρ as curator
i. e. for one under 25 years of age; c/. M itteis, Orundz. 248.
* Stud. 20, 283, p. 139 (beginning of the fourth century). In BGU,
3, 745 (Gallienus), we have the record of a trial involving a guardian and
a minor. For minors acting through their legal representatives, see P . Hamb.
1, 29, lOff.
* Gradenwitz, Arch. 3 (1906), 406— 14.
BOU, 1, 26, 21 (173/4).
Security Debts 111
8. Security
Before a creditor could take possession of a pledge which had
been given him as security for the payment of a debt, a judgment
of the prefect was necessary^. The procedure by which a missio
in rem was granted by the prefect was as follows. The creditor
handed in an application either personally or through his repre­
sentative at a sessio pro tribunate requesting execution of fore­
closure®. The prefect passed judgment on the request and comman­
ded the strategus to investigate the case®. The decision of the
prefect was transmitted to the creditor through the office of the
archidicastes^. The debtor was informed of the prefect’s decision
by the creditor, who notified him through the office of the stra­
tegus®. The debtor might petition the strategus for a stay of
execution®. If the strategus had found everything in order in the
causae cognitio and no petition for a stay of execution had reached
him, or if it had reached him and had not been allowed, the stra­
tegus granted the right of foreclosure. At this point it was ne­
cessary for the creditor to petition the strategus again for the
actual execution®. In the case of moveable objects he directed
the seizure by the praetors. In the case of real property, there
followed re-registration in the name of the creditor in the property
record office. To secure full possession, however, it was necessary
for the creditor to go through the whole process again as before.
The eventual outcome was an order given by the strategus to
vacate the property within ten days®.
9. Debts
The edict of Julius Alexander had much to say about debts
and the rights of the fiscus against a debtor. The prefect directed
that no one should be imprisoned for debt® following, as he says
a Povkrjaig of Augustus which confirmed a rule already effective
in Egypt 1®. An appeal to the prefect against imprisonment because
of inability to pay debt is found in SB, 4426 (274) which indicates*
^ M itteis, Orundz. 159— 61.
® BO U , 3, 1038 (under Antoninus P ius); P . R yl. 2, 115 (156); P. Flor.
1, 56, 10 (234); P . Berl. Leihgabe, 10, 16 (19. Oct. 120); M itteis, Chrest. 241;
Meyer, Jur. P ap. 49.
^ BOU, 3, 1038, 14; P . Flor. 1, 56, 7 and 17.
* BOU, 3, 1038, 11; P . Flor. 1, 56, 5; P . R yl. 2, 115.
® BOU, 3, 1038, 9 ff. — ® BOU, 7, 1574 (176/7).
’ BGU, 7, 1573, 24— 29 (141/2); P 8 I , 4, 282 (183).
® BOU, 7, 1573,24— 29; P . Flor. 1, 55 (88 or 96).
« D itt., OGIS, 669, 16f. — Diodorus 1, 79.
 112 Civil Jurisdiction
that the policy of Augustus was not always followed in the late
third century.
The fiscus enjoyed certain rights against the debtor which
others could not employ. These rights will be enumerated below.
1) κατέχεσϋαι αυτόν τό δνομα^, that is, note the name among the
list of debitores fiscales. Anyone who entered upon an obligation,
pledge, or purchase with the debtor after the posting of the name,
might be liable to the fiscus for his debts. The creditor of a fiscal
debtor who was in possession of a mortgage or who had secured
the return of his loan before the listing of the debtor’s name was
protected from any claims upon the part of the fiscus. 2 ) προ-
γράφειν^, a public posting of the name so that every one would
be warned against entering into agreements with the proscribed
individuaP. The prefect Sempronius Liberalis in an edict comman­
ding the return to the place of residence ascribed the fact that
many were continuing to stay abroad to a fear of the προγραφαι,
or confiscations'**. 3) μέρη των υπαρχόντων κατέχειν εν τοΐς δημοσίοις
γραμματοφνλακίοις, i. e. pignora capere, seizure of a part of the
debtor’s property as a pledge for the payment of the debt®. In
P. Ryl. 2 , 84 (146) the representative of the prefect commanded
the strategus to release certain lands belonging to the debtors of
the state provided there was nothing due the treasury. These
lands had been held as security for the payment of debts to the
fiscus. 4) κατακλείεσϋαι.. . είς φυλακήν, i. e. execution of its demands
against the person of the debtor by imprisonment®.
T h e e d ic t o f J u l i u s A le x a n d e r p r o t e c t e d t h e c r e d ito r o f t h e
f is c a l d e b t o r in s e v e r a l w a y s . I t p r o v id e d t h a t t h e fis c u s c o u ld
n o t d e m a n d b y a n hypothecaria actio f r o m t h a t c r e d ito r , p r o p e r t y
t h a t a d e b to r t o t h e fis c u s h a d p le d g e d t o a n o t h e r c r e d i t o r ’ . I t
c o u ld n o t r e c la im f r o m t h e p u r c h a s e r b y a vindicatio, p r o p e r t y
t h a t o n e o f i t s d e b to r s h a d sold®. T h e w ife o f a f is c a l d e b t o r to o k
p r e c e d e n c e o v e r t h e fis c u s t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e a m o u n t o f h e r
dow ry® . T h e fis c u s w a s t r e a t e d a s a p r i v a t e d e b to r , a n d i t s c la im s
c o u ld o n ly b e s a tis f ie d f r o m t h e n e t w o r th o f a d e b to r . T h e n e t
w o r th w a s d e te r m in e d b y t h e s u b t r a c t i o n o f t h e a m o u n t o f a ll
c la im s a g a in s t a m a n ’s p r o p e r t y in c lu d in g t h e d o w r y o f h is w ife .
^ D itt. 1. c. line 22. On the whole passage concerning debto, see
Uxkull-G yllenband, BOU, V 2, p. 72.
^ D itt. 1. c. 11. 23— 24. — ^ jjj^g 22.
« W ilcken, Chrest. 19, intr.; R ostow zew , Kolonat, 208/9. In P . Qiss. 1,
19, 22 w e have a reference to such a proscription in a private letter.
® D itt. 1. c. lino 23. — “ Ibid, line 17.
’ Ibid, line 19. — ® Ibid, lines 20— 21. — “ Ibid, lines 25— 2C
Debts 113
To make the determination of a man’s net worth easy, the prefect
Mettius Rufus commanded in an edict that all claims against a
man’s property be filed together with the registration of his holdings
in the record office*.
Officials of the state were forbidden to extend the privilegium
exigendi of the fiscus to the collection of private debts, both those
genuinely owed to them and also those obtained by cession from
others®.
An edict of M. Petronius Mamertinus was directed against the
pernicious practise of certain creditors who refused to accept the
payment of debts when due, in order to cause the debtor to pay
more than he owed because of his fear of incurring penalties by
delay. The prefect threatened punishment of those indulging in
this practise®. On their part the debtors often tried to evade
payment by threatening to bring a serious charge against their
creditors, with a view to causing the creditor to accept less than
the full amount of the debt, or to postpone the payment of the
debt. The prefect Valerius Eudaemon in an edict commanded
that the individual against whom an action for the recovery of
a debt was brought, must pay at once or otherwise institute an
accusatio falsi vel calumniae, and sequester the amount of the
debt*.
In a record of cases tried before the prefect Septimius Vegetus
(85—88) is a trial of a creditor against his debtor®. The former
had imprisoned the latter and his wife, for which the prefect
threatened him with immediate scourging. In the course of the
trial a statement was made concerning the appointment by the
prefect of five years and of ten years respectively in which demand
might be made for the payment of a debt®. The passage is unclear
but Wilcken suggests an interpretation that commends itself. By
edict the prefect ordained that claims for debts lapsed after a
period of five years in the cities in which the conventus was held.
In others, the action for the recovery of debt could not be brought
after a period of ten years’.
A collection of decisions of the late second century in cases
concerning cessio bonorum is extant. The general principle followed
in the decisions of the prefects Munatius (L. Munatius Felix ?) and
1 P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V III 31— 36.
- D itt. 1. c. lines 15— 22. — = P . F ay . 21, 15ff. (134).
* P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V III 9— 18 (138).
® P . Flor. 1, 61, 59 (86— 88). — ® ibid, line 45.
’ W ilcken, Arch. 4 (1908), 447— 448; of. Mitteis, Chrest. 80, and the
literature cited there.
Reinmath, The Prefect of Egypt g
114 Civil Jurisdiction
Petronius Mamertinus (133—35) was that a cessio bonoruni was
valid if no intent to defraud the creditors could be shown A
rescript of Severus and Caracalla ruled that cessio bonoTum might
be applied in private, as well as in public affairs. In other words
the burden of a liturgy might be evaded by making a cession of
one’s property 2. There was no mention of the retention of one-
third of the property by the owner of which we read in CPR,
1, 20 (250) as we have mentioned above.
Imperial rescripts protecting heirs against the creditors of the
deceased individual when the inheritance was insufficient to meet
the debts were referred to in a petition®. Mention of the prefect
Sulpicius Similis (107—12) and the ξενικών πράκτορες in connection
with the collection of a debt is made in P. Oxy. 4, 712 (late second
century).
Litigation concerning delinquency in the payment of taxes
formed a great part of the business of the prefect’s court. Julius
Alexander spoke in exaggerated terms of the great havoc caused
by informers against tax delinquents, real and imagined. The
whole economy, he said, was shaken and many preferred to give
up their property rather than to be subject to constant litigation
at the hands of the eclogistae^.
10. Status
Questions of status came before the prefect. In one such case·,
a freedman asserted that his patron had accepted money in settle­
ment of all claims which the latter had upon him. Rutilius Lupus
decided in favor of the patron on the basis of the άστικοΐ νόμοι and
added. If you find fault, I shall command that you be beaten
with a stick®.”
^ P · R y l· 2, 75 (late second century). Munatius conducted the trials
on 17. Apr.
^ BG U , 1, 473 (199/200); c/. M itteis, Hermes, 32 (1897), 651/2; idem,
Chrest. 374.
^ P . R yl. 2, 117, 14 (267).
‘ D itt. OGIS, 669, 37/40. — ^ p
chapti;e xn
CRIMINAL J U R I S D I C T I O N
N o a t t e m p t h a s b e e n m a d e t o d r a w a s h a r p lin e o f d is tin c tio n
b e tw e e n t h e c iv il a n d t h e c r im in a l ju r is d ic tio n o f t h e p r e f e c t in
d e s c r ib in g t h e c a se s t h a t c a m e b e fo re h im b e c a u s e in m a n y i n ­
s ta n c e s b o t h w e re in v o lv e d in t h e s a m e c a se . T h e re c o r d s c o n ­
c e r n in g p u r e ly c r im in a l c a se s a r e v e r y s c a n ty , b e c a u s e th e r e w e re
n o t t h e s a m e r e a s o n s f o r m a k in g c o p ie s f r o m t h e o ffic ia l r e p o r t s
of su c h tria ls .
As the possessor of the imperium, the prefect enjoyed criminal
jurisdiction^. By special imperial grant he held the ius gladii^,
as well as the right to condemn to hard labor in the quarries for
life®. A document of most unusual interest is an official order
for the release of a certain Niger, the slave of Papirius, from the
alabaster quarries in the Hermopolite nome written in the formal
hand and with red ink in the office of the prefect Subatianus
Aquila^. The peregrinus Niger had completed a five-year period
of servitude in the quarries to which he had been sentenced by
Claudius Julianus, perhaps a procurator, in the year 204. The
order for release was addressed to the strategus of the Arsinoite
nome, vvhere Niger, no doubt, had his residence and not to the stra­
tegus of the Hermopolite nome where the quarry was probably
situated.
The criminal court, δικαστήριον, was apparently held at Alex­
andria only, in contrast to the βήμα of the prefect which was the
term describing the court held in the conventus cities and in
Egypt generally on the circuit of the prefect. In a trial held in
1 Dig. 1, 17> 1; r/· Taubensohlag, D as Strafrecht, on the criminal juris­
diction of the prefect.
2 Mommsen, Strafrecht, 244; cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2^, 270f.
3 This was done b y Hadrian’s edict. Mommsen, Strafrecht, 2, 949.
Zucker, Sitzh. A k. Bert. 37 (1910), 713ff. (209); Schubart, P . gr.
Berol. 35; S B , 4639; W ilcken, Arch. 5 (1913), 436ff.
8*
 f
Criminal Jurisdiction
116
Hermopolis Parva on 14. August, 262 the prefect rendered a private
law decision and left its execution to the strategus, but the criminal
law decision was reserved for his court in Alexandria
1. Penalties
T h e p e n a ltie s p r e s c r ib e d f o r d is o b e d ie n c e t o t h e e d ic ts o f t h e
p r e f e c ts a r e f r e q u e n t l y v a g u e , ποιήσοντες δίκην νπομενονσι την
προσήκουσαν ( th e p e n a l t y f o r s c rib e s w r itin g d o c u m e n ts w i t h o u t
a n o r d e r f r o m t h e r e c o r d o f f i c e s ) τειμωρήσομαι (fo r f a ilu r e t o
r e g is te r d o c u m e n ts in t h e L i b r a r y o f H a d ria n )® , την προσήκουσαν
δίκην (fo r f a ilu r e t o g iv e m u t u a l r e c e ip ts )^ , τής προσηκονσης τεύξον-
ται τιμωρίας (fo r m a k in g ille g a l ex actio n s)® . T h e y m e a n t l i t t l e m o re
t h a n c o u r t a c tio n , if c o m p la in t w e re m a d e a g a i n s t t h e o ffe n d e rs .
T h e g n o m o n o f t h e id io lo g u s p r o v id e d i n g e n e r a l t h a t a t r a n s ­
g re s s io n o f a n im p e r ia l d e c r e e o r o f a p r e f e c t ’s e d ic t w a s t o b e
p u n is h e d b y a s lid in g s c a le o f fin e s r a n g in g f r o m p a r t i a l t o e n tir e
c o n f is c a tio n o f p r o p e r t y . T h e p r e f e c ts a llo w e d th e m s e lv e s c o n s i­
d e r a b le l a t i t u d e in f ix in g t h e p e n a ltie s f o r v io la to r s a n d h e n c e
o f te n d id n o t s t a t e w i t h e x a c tn e s s t h e p u n is h m e n ts t h r e a t e n e d in
t h e i r e d ic ts . T h e p r o c e e d s f r o m fin e s w e n t in to t h e a c c o u n t o f
t h e idiologus® . E q u a l l y v a g u e a r e t h e p u n is h m e n ts t h a t th e
p r e f e c t B a e b iu s lu n c i n u s (213—15) h e ld o u t t o t h e s t r a t e g i Avho
s h o u ld fa il t o c o o p e r a te in t h e c a p t u r e o f b a n d its . A f te r p r o m is in g
r e w a r d s t o th o s e w h o s h o u ld a s s is t, h e t h r e a t e n e d ζημίαι μετά κιν­
δύνου if a n y c rim in a l s h o u ld e s c a p e t h e v ig ila n c e o f t h e s tr a te g ic .
T h e e d ic t o f P la c c u s , o n t h e c o n tr a r y , p r o v id e d t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y
f o r a n y o n e a p p r e h e n d e d c a r r y in g w eapons® .
Those who refused to obey the provisions of the edict of Vergilius
Capito which was directed against unlawful exactions by soldiers
and other officials were to be sent to the conventus®. The one
who was found guilty of extortion was to pay tenfold the amount
of the exaction and fourfold was to go to the one who laid infor­
mation against the offender^®. Lusius Geta, after exempting the
priests of Socnopaeus from compulsory cultivation in 54, added
1 P . Strass. 5 (262).
^ P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V III 38 (M ettius R ufus— 89).
® P . Oxy. 1, 34 verso, col. I l l 14 (T. Flavius Titianus— 127).
^ P . F ay. 21, 24— 25 (M. Petronius Mamertinus—-134).
® P . Oxy. 8, 1100, 15 (Subatianus A quila— 206). — ® BO V , 5, 37.
’ P . Oxy. 12, 1408, lines 16, 17, 19 (213).
® W ilcken, Chrest. 13, 10. 11 (34— 35).
» D itt. OOIS, 665 lines 69, 70, 71 (48).
ibid. 11. 28— 30.
Penalties 117
that anyone changing or disputing what has been decreed η αρ-
γυρικώς ή σωματικώς κολασ&ησεταΡ. Informers, as well as those from
whom they had secured their information, were threatened with
punishment for bringing in false information by an edict of Juhus
Alexander. An informer Avho had three times brought in charges
that could not be substantiated was to suffer confiscation of one-
half of his property upon bringing in a fourth charge®. By the
same edict collectors were commanded to restore to the injured
person the illegal exactions which they had made and were fined
an equal sum®. The eclogistae who should assess taxes in accor­
dance with an average of the inundations of the previous years
instead of using the current inundation was subject to a fine three
times the amount wrongfully assessed^. An edict of Petronius
Quadratus (early second century ?) the meaning of which cannot
be fully ascertained provided that certain troublesome individuals,
who enjoyed ατέλεια, were to suffer confiscation of their goods®.
In P. Wis. 23 (in doct. diss. of J. W. Logan, University of Wis­
consin), Callinicus an ex-comogrammateus is brought before
Eudaemon, perhaps Valerius Eudaemon, the prefect, who says,
ήδίκησας άπορον ανϋρωπον έδοκας εις λιτουργιαν, αίτιος \ων τα\υτης
εγένου αίτιος τοΰ πραϋήναι τα δντα αύτω. ένέχη.............. ε . τώ τα-
μείιρ τα τειμήματα άπο\β\ώσεις, άλλα καΐ τούτω [ . . . . τέ]τραπλασειον
ή δσου πέπραται τά υπάρχοντα αυτόν. The comogrammateus
had nominated a man for a liturgy who was άπορος and
when the latter had apparently ceded his property rather than
undertake the liturgy, the comogrammateus had sold the pro­
perty and kept the proceeds. The prefect condemns him to pay
a fine to the imperial fiscus and in addition to make fourfold
restitution to the defrauded man. Fraud in connection Avith the
cession of property to avoid liturgical service was sometimes
punishable by banishment υπέρ Κόπτον, if our interpretation of a
fragmentary decision of the prefect Petronius Mamertinus is
correct®.
Philo speaks of different kinds of scourges used in Egypt for
crimes of various kinds. The Egyptians were scourged by a different
scourge and by a different class of executioners from the people
1 D itt. OGIS, 664, 12— 18 (54).
^ Op. cit. 669, 40— 42.
3 Ibid, line 54. — * Ibid, lines 58, 59.
® Arch. 5 (1913), 383; see also W ilcken, ibid. 423 (early second cen tu ry ).
« P . R yl. 75, 31 a n d 34 (133— 35); c/. P S I , 4, 281, 35, a reference to
th e p refec t H elio d o ru s (138— 40), έκέλενσέ με ά\η\ρδημήσαι νπέρ τ[αυτ]ην
νννεί τριετίαν a n d W ilcken’s em en d atio n υπέρ Κόπτον, Arch. 6 (1920), 385.
118 Criminal Jurisdiction

of Alexandria who were beaten with rods wielded by the lictors

of Alexandria^. The prefect Avilius Flaccus commanded men to
be crucified, after they had been scourged and tortured with fire
if one may credit the statement of Philo
Money fines®, scourging*, imprisonment®, hard labor in the
mines®, banishment’, and death® were imposed as punishments
by the prefects.
A certain amount of grim humor is evident in some of the
CHAPTBE X III
decisions of the prefects. A man had held an obligation for forty
years without demanding payment. Finally he sued for the recov­ MILITARY FU N CT IO N S
ery of his money. After hearing the case, the prefect said to the
plaintiff, “I’ll make you a present of one-half the time. Come The prefect was the commander-in-chief of the army in Egypt*.
again in twenty years.” Whereupon he ordered the debt to be It never consisted of a very large body of troops. Owing to the
cancelled®. To a doctor pleading for exemption from a liturgy fact that Augustus had laid down the principle of excluding men
for which he had been nominated, as he stated, by the very people of senatorial rank from Egypt, the army was not under the com­
whom he had treated, the prefect Valerius Eudaemon replied, mand of senatorial legati as in other provinces. The several legions
“Perhaps your treatment was wrong. If you are a doctor offi­ were commanded by praefecti legionis^.
cially practising mummification, tell me what the solvent is and
you shall have the exemption you claim*®.”
1. Military Forces in Egypt
* Philo, In Place. 78. — “ Ibid. 84.
® D itt. OGIS, 664, 12— 18 (54); cf. P . Oxy. 1, 61 (221); P . P a y . 66
In the time of Augustus, there were three legions in Egypt,
(185 or 217). nine cohorts of auxiliary troops, and three alae of cavalry®. These
* P . Oxy. 4, 706 (c. 115); P . Oxy. 3, 653 (160— 62). troops were divided more or less equally among the three geo­
= P . Giss. 84, col. II 18 (83). — ® BGU, 4, 1024, 5. graphical divisions of the country. One legion and three cohorts
’ P . Wis. 24, 16ff. (in typew ritten dissertation of Gertrude Malz).
were stationed at Alexandria. Another legion and three cohorts
« BGU, 4, 1024. — “ P . Flor. 1, 61 (85/6).
P . Oxy. 1, 40 (c. 141/2). were stationed at Babylon, opposite Memphis, and the third legion
was stationed in Upper Egypt. Three cohorts of auxiliary troops
had their quarters at Syene. From the year 23 until perhaps the
year 109 there were only two legions in Egypt*. Under Trajan
a third legion, the II Traiana, was sent to Alexandria®. Soon
after 119 two legions were transferred from Egypt, and the II
Traiana alone was left, with headquarters at Alexandria®.

2. Military Expeditions Made by the Prefects

The military power did not play as large a part in the govern­
ment of Egypt as it did in many other provinces. Augustus gave

^ Lesquier, L'Armée romaine-, W ileken, Grundz. 390— 404, and the

literature cited there; BGU, 696, 113— 114; c/. Hirschfeld, Verwaltimgs-
heaìnterif 345.
“ C IL , 3, 6809, praefectus exercitus qui est in Aegypto.
3 Strabo,’ 17, 797 and 807. — * Tac. A nn. 4, 5.
s G IL, 3, 79 (II. Traiana— 109). — ® Meyer, Heerwesen, 154f.
120 Military Functions
the early prefects great freedom in the work of organizing the
country, in checking the insurrections that might arise, and in
directing any necessary military expeditions^. They retained the
military power until the time of Valerian when the first d%ix
Aegypti appears^. The first three prefects were to a greater extent
than any that followed them engaged in military affairs. Although
Egypt fell to Augustus at the death of Anthony and Cleopatra,
the southern region, which had never fully been under the control
of the Ptolemies, did not acquiesce in the rule of the Romans.
A revolt spread throughout the entire Thebaid when the Roman
government began to send its tax collectors there. The first prefect,
Cornelius Gallus, himself in charge of the troops, easily suppressed
the revolt, and fixed the boundary of Roman rule in the south
at the First Cataract. We have one of the numerous inscriptions
set up in commemoration of his military prowess and his speed
in subduing Upper Egypt®. The attitude of Gallus apparently
offended Augustus who soon after recalled him, whereupon Gallus
committed suicide.
Aelius Gallus, who succeeded Cornelius Gallus*, was sent out with
the definite purpose of coming to terms with Arabia and Ethiopia.
A large force set out for Arabia under his command. The ex­
pedition was poorly planned, however, and the venture accom-
phshed nothing, very many of the troops falling by reason of
disease and lack of supplies. It was perhaps because of his failure
in this campaign that Aelius Gallus was removed from office.
During the absence of Aelius Gallus in Arabia with the military
forces of Egypt, the Ethiopians, breaking the agreement which
they had made with Cornelius Gallus invaded Roman territory in
the south and seized Syene, Elephantine, and Philae. It was the
first task of Gains Petronius (25—21 B. C.) to drive them out.
In 21 B. C. Augustus received the ambassadors of Ethiopia at
Samos and settled the question of the southern boundary. Toward
the end of his term of office, Petronius put down a riot in the
city of Alexandria, which may have been caused by the conversion
of temple properties into state properties, a program apparently
carried out in part by Petronius®.
The work of Petronius was constructive and lasting. He was
the last of the prefects to take charge of an important military
expedition. When occasion demanded recourse to arms at later
^ Strabo, 17, 819 and 820. — ^ Vopiscus, Vita Aurei. 13.
=> D io, 53, 23; D itt. OOIS, 654.
* Milne, Hist, of E gypt, 277— 79. — ® ibid. 11.
Military Expeditions Made by the Prefects 121
times, the leadership was usually entrusted to some one other
than the prefect. Thus in the campaign against the rebels in the
bucolic uprising of the year 171/2, the prefect issued orders directing
the requisitioning of camels and supplies for an expedition, but did
not take command of the troops to put down the rebellion*. The
one legion of the Egyptian garrison was absent, taking part in
the war with the Marcomanni on the Danube. When reenforce­
ments came from Syria, Avidius Cassius, the governor of that
province, was put in charge of the campaign against the native
rebels. After his success in putting down the revolt, Avidius
Cassius had himself proclaimed emperor. He was the son of a
former prefect, Avidius Heliodorus, and enjoyed the support of
the then prefect of Egypt, C. Calvisius Statianus®.
L. Mussius Aemilianus, the prefect, was proclaimed emperor by
the people of Alexandria in the year 260/1, and proved himself
a capable general against the tribes of barbarians pressing in from
the south. In a few months Gallienus sent out Aurelius Theodotus
to take over the prefecture. A clash between the two ensued in
Alexandria, resulting in great carnage. Aemilianus was sent a
prisoner to Rome®.
In c. 265 the prefect Claudius Firmus in person led an expedition
against the Blemyes of Nubia who had been raiding the southern
frontier. It does not seem to have been a campaign of great im­
portance, however, since no large body of troops accompanied
him*. After capturing Palmyra in 272, Aurelian left Probus in
command of Egypt. He drove out the Blemyes but was made
emperor before he had completed his work in Upper Egypt®.
The troops in Egypt were used primarily for police duty and
were particularly necessary to support the prefect in the turbulent
city of Alexandria. Of the relation of the prefect Avilius Flaccus
(32—38) to the body of soldiers stationed in Egypt we learn a
few details from Philo. The search for weapons, the possession
of which had been made punishable with death by an edict, was
carried out in Alexandria by a centurion with a band of his sol-
* P . Flor. 2, 278(171/2). It seems to me that W ilcken correctly interprets
th e expedition referred to in these docum ents as a campaign against
th e rebellious peasantry in the D elta to the east of Alexandria, Arch. 3
(1906), 552f.
^ Milne, op. cit. 52— 54.
3 iiyid, 73__7 4 ; J . G. Milne in J E A , 10 (1924) 80— 82 m aintains that
Aemilianus never claim ed royal power but was loyal to Gallienus against
th e Syrian legions.
* P . Oxy. 9, 1194 (c. 265). — ® Milne, Hist, of Egypt. 76— 77.
 122 Military Functions
diersi. The general conditions of the country making such an
order imperative may have been impressed on Flaccus, as Wilcken
suggests, by his trip of inspection to the Thebaid in 33/4 just
one year before issuing his edict 2 . Flaccus regulated the military
affairs of the country and taught the commanders not to deprive
the soldiers of their pay and the soldiers that their primary
duty was to preserve peace®. The prefect C. Vibius Maximus
assigned the commander of one of the squadrons of troops the
duty of registering those from the country who were staying in
Alexandria after he had issued commands for all to return to their
place of residence*. It has already been mentioned that the military
commanders often served as judges under the delegation of the
prefect.
The prefect himself conducted the examination of the tirones,
and certified to their fitness to join the cohort in a letter to the
commander®. Prior to 212, the examination of the Egyptians
entering the military forces was of importance because of the
grant of citizenship which was usually made at the close of the
term of enlistment®. The prefect named the decuriones of the
auxiliary cohorts^ and granted lionesta m issio upon the completion
of the term of enlistment®.
Exemption from military service was granted by the prefect
Vergilius Capito to Trypho, the well-known weaver of Oxyrhynchus,
because of eye trouble®. A father succeeded in getting a transfer
for his son from service in the legion to a cavalry squadron by
applying to the prefect, who granted the request and gave the
boy a furlough as well. Since the transaction probably took
place after 212, there was no question of a change of status in­
volved by this transfer from the legion to the auxiliary forces*®.
A complaint by one veteran against another veteran in a military
* Philo, in Place. 8 6 ; W ilcken, Chrest. 13.
- W ilcken, op. cit. 13; cf. Ostr. 2, no. 1372,
’’ Philo, in Place. 1 and 5. — ^ P . Land. 3, 904, p. 125 (104).
® P . Oxy. 7, 1022 (103), prefect C. Minicius Italus; BOU, 2, 696 (156),
prefect Sempronius Liberalis; cf. Mommsen Eph. Epigr. 7, 456— 67.
® Parker, Legions of Rome, 213ff.; cf. Plin. E p . 10, 29 and 30 in
which Trajan decides th at the officer who enrols recruits is punishable
if those he enlists are not eligible for m ilitary service.
’ Sanders on P . Mich, lat. 61— 68 (c. 242).
8 W ilcken, Chrest. 457, prefect T. H aterius N epos; Boak, A n n .S erv . 29
(1929), 69, lO ff., prefect T. Pactum eius Magnus; cf. P . Oxy. 9, 1204
(299), in which a certain Aurelius Plutarchus stated that he had been
sent to the Small Oasis to discharge som e troops there.
» P . Oxy. 1, 39 (52). — i» P . Oxy. 14, 1666 (third century).
The Military Epicrisis 123
colony was delegated to another official for hearing* by the
prefect Q. Maecius Laetus, to whom it was addressed.
5. The M ilitary Epicrisis
Reference has already been made to the military epicrisis. While
its exact nature is not fully known, it is perfectly clear that one of the
purposes in examining veterans was to determine their status
with a view to the privileges to w^hich they were entitled at the
close of their service. It was only after they had appeared before
the prefect or his representative and had submitted their δικαιώματα
and had been entered into the τόμος επικρίσεων of the prefect
of Egypt that they could lay claim to the rewards to which veter­
ans were entitled. It was for the purpose of procuring the nec­
essary papers to present to the prefect in an epicrisis of this
kind, that the soldiers of certain legions in Judaea, at the close
of their term of enlistment petitioned the governor of Judaea,
Sacramento absoluti sumus, et in patriam A lexandriam ad A egyptum
ituri petimiis et rogamus digneris nobis adfirmare a te missos esse
ut ex adfirmatione tua apparent nos ex eadem legione missos esse
non ex classe, ut possit rebus necessariis subscriptio tua instrum enti
causa nobis prodesse. To which the governor added the following
subscriptio'. Veterani ex legionibus instrumentum accipere non
Solent, attamen Sacramento vos a me iussu imperatoris nostri solutos
notum fieri Praefecto A egypti desideratis. sportulam et instrumen­
tum dabo^. It was of importance prior to 212 to have the distinc­
tion between service in the legion and in the fleet maintained
because the awards after the completion of service were different.
They desired to use the instrumenta given them by the governor
of Judaea in the examination before the prefect of Egypt, when
they should take up settlement there, so that they would receive
the rewards of their service, Roman citizenship for themselves,
their wives, children, and parents, grants of land, and various
other privileges. The resulting procedure before the prefect of
^ W ilcken, Chrest. 461.
- P S I , 9, 1026, col. o, 9— 12, 30— 33 (150); A. Degrassi, Il papiro
1026 della Società Italiana e i diplom i m ilitari romani Aegyptus 10 (1929),
242— 254; cf. W . Seston, Les V étérans sans Diplôm es des Légions ro­
m aines, Revue de Philologie 59 (1923) 375— 95, who holds that veterans
of the legions did not receive diplomas which were reserved for subsidiary
branches of the service only; also Scarlat Lambrino, U n nouveau diplôm e
de Tempereur Claude. Comptes Rendus de VAcadémie des Inscr. et Belles-
Lettres (1930) 131— 37.
124 Military Functions
Egypt is brought to our view in another text^. On 1. July, 94 a
certain veteran with his comrades of the X Fretensia Legio which
had served in Judaea, presented themselves before the prefect
of Egypt, M. Junius Rufus, no doubt, for epicrisis. They had
received their Jionesta missio from the governor of Judaea in De­
cember of 93 and apparently wished to settle in Egypt and for
this purpose an epicrisis before the prefect was necessary.
V e te r a n s m i g h t b e s u b je c te d t o a n e p ic ris is m o r e t h a n o n c e .
A s o ld ie r w h o h a d p r e s e n te d h is b r o n z e m i l i t a r y d ip lo m a in a n
e x a m in a tio n b e fo re t h e p r e f e c t C. C a lv is iu s S t a t i a n u s (170—175)
a p p e a r e d f o r e p ic ris is b e f o r e t h e p r e f e c t V e tu r iu s M a c r in u s (181—183)
i n 182/3^. W h e t h e r t h i s w a s n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e o f a c h a n g e o f
re s id e n c e a s in BGU, 3, 1033 o r f o r s o m e o t h e r r e a s o n , is n o t c le a r.
4. Privileges of Veterans
An edict of Octavian which granted certain immunities to all
veterans has been found on a papyrus®. It was probably of a
date earlier than the beginning of Roman rule in Egypt. All vete­
rans, their wives, their children, and their parents were entitled
to immunitas omnium rerum, citizenship, a vacatio from all public
duties, the right suffragium ferendi censendique potestas in tribu,
and enjoyment of all honors and benefits which they already
possessed. The duration of the vacatio is not limited in the edict
but that in the second century at least it was no longer permanent,
is indicated by the mention of a five-year period after discharge
in a soldier’s plea for freedom from public services addressed
to the prefect in 172*.
In the record of the hearing of certain veterans of Jewish legions
before M. Junius Rufus, which has been mentioned above, an
edict of Domitian granting immunities to veterans, is included.
The veteran M. Valerius Quadratus testified that this edict was
a copy made by him on 2. July, 94 of the edict of Domitian as
it was published in a bronze tablet in the Caesareum Magnum
in Alexandria®. In addition to the grant of citizenship, Domitian
gave the veterans and the members of their families immunity
from all vectigales and pcnditores. Wilcken points out (Clirest. p. 548)
1 W ilcken, Chrest. 463, col. I l l 1— 10. — ^ BGU, 3, 847 (182/3).
® BGU, 2, 628 verso 2. For the reading consul ter or consultor, which
is of im portance for the dating of the tex t, see W ilcken, Chrest. 462 (40— 37
B . C. ?). On the im m unities of veterans see E . K uhn, Stadt. Verfass. 1, 144f.
« BGU, 1, 180, 8 ff. (172).
® W ilcken, Chrest. 463, col. I I 10— 20 (87— 88); revised te x t by
Schehl, Aegyptus 13 (1933), 137ff.
Privileges of Veterans The Maintenance of the Peace 125
that the whole document gains in comprehensibility by inter­
preting it as dealing with an epicrisis. On July 1 the veteran
underwent an examination before the prefect which attested to his
status as a soldier honorably discharged. On the following day
he transcribed the privileges and the rewards to which his epi­
crisis of the day before entitled him under the edict of Domitian.
5. The Maintenance of the Peace
The prefect took administrative measures for the maintenance
of order throughout Egypt. Police duty was largely in the hands
of local officials*. We meet with many grades and titles of local
police officers under the empire. For the preservation of peace
and safety small bands of soldiers were stationed in military
posts throughout the country. It was these groups that to a
large extent gave rise to the complaints from the native popu­
lation concerning unjust requisitions. The prefect had few direct
dealings with the officers policing the country. The strategus
threatened certain Xgaxomaaxai under him with being sent to
the prefect if they did not heed his orders to apprehend certain
bandits whom he named®.
When circumstances demanded that measures of a general
nature be taken in the interests of law and order, the prefect
issued the required orders. Mention has been made of the order
of Flaccus against the carrying of weapons. Philo tells us that
shiploads of arms were found since the people had often revolted.
The search for weapons in the homes of the Jews, to which refer­
ence is made in Philo’s account, was undertaken, no doubt,
in accordance with this edict®. Flaccus took other police measures,
nominally in the interests of public safety. He prohibited pro­
miscuous mobs from assembling* and arrested the 38 members
of the Jewish Council of Elders®.
In the event of disputes and quarrels between the inhabitants
of different villages and nomes, the prefect acted as the court
of last resort. The prefect Laberius Maximus at the close of judi­
cial proceedings involving a matter of this kind demanded an
oath of the police officer that he would produce the instigator
of the quarrels which had been the subject of the trial. The culprit
had been the chief mover in a racial and inter-village quarrel®.
The prefect Sempronius Liberalis after the uprising in the year
1 W ilcken, Grundz. 413— 15. — ^ BGU, 1, 325 (third century).
3 Philo, in Flacc. 86, 92— 93. — “ ibid. 4. — ® vhid. 74.
» P . Giss. 2, 84, col. I I 9 (81— 85).
126 Military Functions
153/4, in which the prefect L. Munatius Felix was killed, enjoined
upon the strategi and epistrategi the necessity of preventing
ecpodoi of robber bands swelled by the addition of numerous
fugitives from the villages. Any evil-doers captured were to
be examined and sentenced by the prefect^.
In an edict of the prefect Petronius Quadratus already men­
tioned, the command was given to confiscate the goods of certain
trouble makers who were not subject to tax, and who may, perhaps,
have been Greeks^.
Under Trajan there occurred an uprising of the Jews. So serious
did the revolt become that the native population was armed
under the command of the strategi and the reverberations of the
struggle were heard for over a half century®. We have no evidence
to indicate the part played by the prefect in subduing the revolt
but we may assume that he was in command of the forces of the
government.
In the year 122 a disturbance occurred in Alexandria at the
time of the consecration of the Apis bull. Although the news
was brought to Hadrian while he was in Gaul on his tour of the
empire, he did not deem it sufficiently important to interrupt
his trip. The trouble was probably settled by the prefect^.
The Roman government never fully kept in check the roving
bands of outlaws which at times became a serious menace to the
safety of travelers. The prefect L. Baebius Juncinus in 213 vigo­
rously urged the strategi, as we have seen, to exercise greater
vigilance in running down bandits, and in an edict accompanying
the letter, forbade the people of Egypt to give shelter to bandits®.
The strategi again appear as the executive agents of the prefect
in the police administration of the country as they have been
seen to be in matters of general civil administration.*
1 BGU, 2, 372 (154); W ilcken, Chrest. 19 and the literature cited
there, particularly Meyer, K lio, 7 (1907), 124.
^ Arch. 5 (1913), 384, no. 75; cf. op. cit. 483.
® W ilcken, Chrest. nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, and the literature cited there,
Milne, Hist. of. Egypt, 43— 44.
* Milne, 1. c. — ^ P . Oxy. 12, 1408 (c. 213/14).
CONCLUSION
The picture which emerges from our study of the prefect of
Egypt is that of an agent who possesses all of his powers by grant
from his principal and who exercises them in accordance with
standards laid down by his principal. The emperor appointed
the prefect. In only infrequent instances did he carry over his
office from one emperor to another, or if he was retained, it was
usually only for a short period, since most emperors preferred
to name their own prefect who, in many cases, was a close personal
friend or trusted subordinate. His tenure of office was at the
pleasure of the emperor who recalled him at any time and for
any reason. The average term of office of sixty prefects, for whom
a period of rule is attested, was about three years and three months,
longer it is true than the regular one-year term of provincial
governors under the Republic, but still relatively short in com­
parison with the reign of the emperors.
His conduct in office was regulated by letters, rescripts and
mandata from the emperor. The amount of the taxes to be raised
in the country was fixed by the emperor, and exemption from
liturgical duties was granted only in accordance with provisions
that were laid down by successive emperors. In short no in­
dependent action was undertaken by the prefect in any ad­
ministrative matter which was not in strict harmony with the
policy of the emperor. The emperor normally acted through
the prefect in matters affecting Egypt but might, and sometimes
did act independently of him. The people of Egypt had regular
access to the emperor only through the prefect. From the
standpoint of the inhabitants of Egypt, the prefect was an ab­
solute ruler. From the standpoint of the emperor, he was a
servant who carried out the emperor’s slightest wish.
Administrative procedure within the country was highly or­
ganized, well regulated, and almost self operating. The Ptolemies
had developed a strongly centralized bureaucratic organization.
 128 Conclusion
That this machine did not operate so successfully at times as
it might was not the fault of the machine. The Romans still further
systematized the administrative procedure and applied the force
necessary to make the system operate effectively. All authority,
even in the smallest matter was ultimately vested in the prefect!
But all that was required of him in most matters was to exercise
a supervisory control. Tax schedules were fixed for every kind
of tax. The machinery for assembling the endless reports upon
which the processes of government depended was set up. The
limits of activity for all subordinate officials was, no doubt, reg­
ulated in much the same way as the gnomon of the idiologus
prescribed the limits of that official’s authority. All of Egypt
was much like a modern, well-organized business corporation,
the functions of whose executive head consist largely in receiving
the well-digested reports prepared by his subordinates from
innumerable memoranda, from which he can assure himself that
all phases of the organization are functioning properly, and on
the basis of which he can recommend general policies to his board
of directors. The prefect kept himself well-informed upon con­
ditions in Egypt both by the examination of numerous reports
and also by frequent trips of inspection.
The prefect freed himself as much as possible from administrative
details by delegating the conduct of trials at the conventus and
the examinations to determine status, to other judges. The great
mass of executive matters affecting the local administration was
placed in the hands of the strategi. The archidicastes, the idiologus,
the dioecetes, the epistrategi, each had his appointed and well-
defined sphere of activity. Just what limits were placed upon
the prefect s authority over these officials our material does not
permit us to state. In a general way they were subordinate to him.
The prefects of Egypt were, by and large, men of outstanding
ability. In many instances they were men of attainment in liter­
ature and rhetoric. Among such may be named Cornelius Callus,
Claudius Balbillus, if we are right in identifying him with the
procurator honored in Ephesus, Vibius Maximus, who wrote
history, Avidius Heliodorus, who had been ab epistulis of Hadrian
and previous to that a rhetorician of note, Volusius Maecianus
who was distinguished both as a jurist and a writer in the field
of jurisprudence, Calvisius Statianus, who before his prefecture
had held the position ab epistulis latinis Augustorum, and Sanctus,
an orator and teacher of Commodus.
As has already been remarked the prefects in many cases were
men who stood close to the emperors appointing them and who
Conclusion 129
enjoyed unusual influence with them. Avilius Flaccus was a
close friend of Tiberius as was Pompeius Planta of Trajan. Maecius
Laetus persuaded Caracalla to kill Geta, and Epagathus stood
high in the counsels of the same emperor. Petronius Secundus
was instrumental, while he was prefect of the praetorian guard,
in making Nerva emperor and was responsible for the killing of
Domitian.
At first the prefecture of Egypt stood highest in the equestrian
cursus, and yielded only to the prefecture of the praetorian guard
when that office became influential in the making of emperors.
A common sequence of offices held by many prefects after the
usual procuratorial career was, praefectus annonae, prefect of
Egypt, prefect of the praetorian guard. Since Egypt occupied
an important place in the provisioning of Rome the promotion
of the 'praefectus annonae to the prefecture of Egypt guaranteed
an incumbent for the latter office who would, to a greater extent
than would otherwise be the case, appreciate the importance
of his position, as head of the region which supplied much of
the grain for Rome.
There is every reason to believe that only the most capable
administrators achieved the prefecture of Egypt. L. Julius Vestinus
was praised as an ornament of the equestrian order, while Julius
Alexander displayed both administrative and military ability
which recommended him to several emperors, and Volusius Mae­
cianus had won unusual distinction as a jurist before becoming
prefect of Egypt. Extensive military experience did not seem
to be a necessary qualification for holding the prefecture, although
many of the prefects had honorable records as military leaders,
notably the early prefects, Julius Alexander, Minicius Italus
and several others. The honor attaching to the office is indicated
by the fact that Hadrian awarded the title of prefect of Egypt
to Marcius Turbo Fronto Publicius Severus in order to lend him
greater prestige although he did not actually assume the office.
The scope of the prefect’s initiative was more circumscribed
than that of the governor of a province in the Republican period.
If the prefect of Egypt had found it necessary to deal with the
Scaptius of Cicero’s Cilician governorship, for example, he would
in all likelihood have asked for the emperor’s advice or he would
have run the risk of censure had his treatment of Scaptius not
coincided with the emperor’s judgment in the matter. That the
prefect who used his own judgment with little regard for the em­
peror’s wishes was not long tolerated is indicated by the suddenness
and frequency with which prefects were sometimes recalled. The
B e i n m ut h , The Prefect o f Egypt 9
130 Conclusion
limits of independent action set for the prefect were largely deter­
mined, of course, by the character of the emperor for, too a large
degree, like emperor, like prefect, held true. The greater freedom
of the early prefects is perhaps more apparent than real since
in their time the various standards and policies were in the making.
In actuality the surveillance of the emperor over the prefect
was perhaps equally close under Augustus and under Diocletian.
By his acceptance of proconsular powers over the provinces
in 23 B. C., Augustus assumed the power which in its development
ultimately brought about the same relation between the imperial
provinces generally and the later emperors which from the very
beginning existed between the emperor and Egypt. The head
of the province became the personal agent of the emperor, for
which the prefect of Egypt was a precedent. The provincial
governorship of the imperial provinces developed, in essence, into
what the prefecture of Egypt had always been.
APPENDIX I
P R E F E C T S OF E G Y P T
Lists of the prefects of E gyp t to the tim e of D iocletian are given by,
M e y e r , Heerwesen, 145ff.; c/. Hermes 32 (1897), 210ff.; ihid. 33 (1898),
263ff.; S e y m o u r d e R i c c i , Proceedings of the Society of Biblical A r ­
chaeology 24 (1902), 56ff. and 97ff.; Cantarelli, Prefetti, 48— 120; L e s -
q u ie r , L ’Armée romaine; M iln e , Hist, of Egypt. The m ost recent com ­
pilation is th a t by Milne who gives, in addition to the prefects, the names
of th e higher officials including the epistrategi arranged under each
emperor down to the year 668.
The first tw o references under each prefect a ttest the earliest and latest
dates at which he is known to have been in office. The references in
parentheses at the end of the several paragraphs are to the Prosop. Im p.
Rom. The editio altera of P ars I, 1933 was not available.
C. Cornelius Gallus 30— 27/6 Strabo 17, 1, 53, p. 819; D itt. 0 6 1 S , 654;
B . C. (1, 448, n i l ) .
Aelius Gallus c. 27 B . C. Strabo 16, 4, 22; Strabo 17, 1, 53; W . L.
W esterm ann, Aelius Gallus and the Irri­
gation System under A ugustus. Cl. Phil.
12 (1917), 236— 243; (1, 16, 135).
C. Petronius 25— 21 B. C. Strabo 17, 1, 3. 43. 54. P . Teb. 2, 302.
P . Rubrius Barbarus 13/12 D itt. OOIS, 656 and 657 ; P . Bouriant 7, 4.
B. C.
C. Turranius 8. Mar. 7, 4. C a g n a t , l O R R , 1295; BGU, 4, 1199;
June, 4 B. C. P . Bond. 2, 354, p. 163 (8/7?); BOU, 4,
1139 (3. N ov. 5); Cagnat, l O R R , 1109
(4. Jan. 4); BOU, 4, 1140 (14. Febr. 4);
BOU, 1198, 1; (3, 344, 296).
P. Octavius 2/1 B . C., D itt. OOIS, 659; BOU, 1200; (2, 425, 16).
3 A. D.
C. Julius Aquila 10/11. C a g n a t , l O R B , 1055 and 1066; P . Oxy.
12, 1434, 12 (107/8); Jos. Ant. 19, 5, 2.
M. Magius Maximus S B , 5235, \ ; S B , 5238, 10; Ditt. OOIS, 665,
25. May, 12. 26— 27 ; Philo, in Place. 10. P hilo’s sta te­
m ent th a t Maximus was prefect the sec­
ond tim e is not y et supported by other
evidence. (2, 323, 73).
L. Seius Strabo under T i­ D io 57, 19, 6 ; (3, 192, 246).
berius.
 132
C. Galerius Febr.-Mar. 23,
c. 31.
Hiberus, acting prefect, c. 32.
A. A vilius Flaccus c. 32,
autum n 38.
C. Vitrasius Pollio 28. Apr.
39, 39/40.
N aeviu s Sertorius Macro
tuider Caligula.
L. Aem ilius R ectus 10. N ov.
41, 29. Apr. 42.
C. Julius Postum us 8. Aug.
45, 47/48.
Gn. Vergilius Capito before
25. Jan. 48, 24. Apr. 52.
L. Lusius Geta 29. Mar. 54.
Modestus under Claudius.
Ti. Claudius Balbillus c. 55,
11. Oct. ? 59
L. Julius Vestinus 28. Jul.
59/60, 7. Ju l. 61.
C. Caecina Tuscus 63 or
soon after.
Ponticus ( ?) 66.
Ti. Julius Alexander 66,
spring 70.
Ti. Julius Lupus 73.
Prefecte of Egypt
C a g n a t , / 0 RR, 1150; Seneca,, ad Helv. 19;
S B , 7256 (27. Aug. 23); Plin. N . H . 19,
3; L. Cantarelli, Per l’am ministrazione
e la storia dell’ egitto Rom ano. Aeqyptus
8 (1927), 89— 96.
D io 58, 19, 6 ; Philo, in Flacc. 1, p. 517.
Philo, in Flacc. 1 and 13ff., pp. 533— 3 4 ;
Wiloken, Chrest. 414 (20. Aug. 33) ; W ilcken,
Chrest. 13 (34/5); P . Oxy. 8, 1089, col. II
25, 35 et passim: Cagnat, IG R R , 1164·
(1, 190, 1175).
C IL, 3, 14147; C a g n a t, lO R R , 1057; Bell,
Jews and Christians, p. 24, 11. 42. 4 3 ;
P . Land. 2, 177, p. 167; A. Stein, N ach­
lese der Präfekten: (3, 456, 524).
Appointed but never reached E g3rpt. Dio
59, 10; c/. Arch. 10 (1932), p. 8, col. I 14.
P . Bond. 1912; P . Bond. 3, 1171, p. 107,
verso, col. l i e ; Cagnat l O R R , 1165; (1 ,3 6 ,
273, c/. 272).
P . Oxy. 2, 283; GIB, 6, 918 (2, 208, 327).
C1B, 3, 6024; P . Oxy. 1, 39; P . Oxy. 1, 38
(after Apr. 49); D i t t . OOIS, 665 (Dec. 49);
(3, 401, 276).
D i t t . OGIS, 664; (2, 308, 322).
Suidas, s. V. Epaphroditos ; P . R y l. 2, 446
(2, 384, 474).
Tac. Ann. 13, 22; A nn. Serv. (1912), p. 97;
D itt. OGIS, 666, 105; ibid. 669, 28. 30. 31;
S B , 5797; S B 7462; H . H enne, Le Prefet
Ti. CI. Balbillus et L’astrologue Balbillus.
Bull, de l'Inst. franç. 21 (1923) 196 and
211ff.; M. R o s t o w z e w , J E A 12 (1926)
24— 9; C. C ic h o r iu s , Der Astrologe Ti. CI.
Balbillus, Sohn des Thrasyllus. Rh. Mus.
N . F. 76 (1927) 102— 105; J . K e i l , For­
schungen in Ephesus 3 (19— 23), 127ff., nos.
41 and 42: A. Stein, Aegyptus 13 (1933)
123— 136; ( 1, 360, 662).
P . Amh. 68, recto, 20; C a g n a t , IG R R ,
1119 and 1124, 25 (60— 61); BGU, 1, 112,
7— 8 (59— 60); P . F ay . 2, p. 33 (7. Jul. 61);
(2, 219, 408).
P . R yl. 2, 119, 4 (iuridicus in 63); ( 1, 257,
82).
W e s s e l y , Stud. 4, p. 69, col. IV 62— 63.
Stein, RE , 10, 154, 155; D i t t . OGIS 669,
65— 66 (6. Jul. 68): P . Oxy. 6, 899, 28
(69); (2, 164, 92).
Jos. B. J . 7, 10, 2— 4; CIB, 3, 31; C a g n a t ,
IG R R , 530 (2, 199, 263).
Prefects of Egypt
Q. ( ?) Paulinus, acting pre­
fect 73.
C. T ettius Africanus 80/1,
12. Febr. 82.
L. Laberius Maximus
9. June, 83.
Julius Ursus c. 84.
C. Septim ius V egetus
8. Febr. 85, Apr.-May, 88.
M. M ettius R ufus 3. Aug.
89, 10. Dec. 90.
T. Petronius Secundus 91,
7. Apr. 93.
M. Junius R ufus 26. Febr.
94, 21. June, 98.
C. Pom peius P lanta before
18. Sept. 98, 25. Febr. 99.
C. Minicius Italu s 101/2,
19. May, 103.
C. Vibius Maximus 29. Aug.
103, 26. Mar. 107.
Servius Sulpicius Similis
Aug. 107, 21. Mar. 112.
M. R utilius Lupus in or
before 113/4, 5. Jan. 117.
133
Jos. B . J . 7, 10, 4; P . Oxy. 10, 1266,
24— 25 (73); (3, 17, 127).
m t t . O G I S , 672; CIB, 35-, GIB, 11, 5382;
(3, 308, 100).
CIB, 3, p. 1962; P . Giss. 84, col. I I 18
(81— 85); (2, 257, 3).
P . Teh. 492; P . Amh. 6 8 ; Dig. 8, 5, 8, 7;
BGU, 5, 54, col. V II.
P . Flor. 61; P . Flor. 1, 55, 22 and 38;
GIB, 3, p. 856 (86); P . Hamh. 1, 4 (30. Mar.
87); C a g n a t , IG R R , 1287 (26. Febr. 88);
P . Oxy. 2, 273, 5; P . Jand. 53, col. I l l
2— 3; P . Amh. 68, verso, col. II 65; BGU,
5, 54, col. V II 65 (3, 216, 349).
P . Hamb. 29, 2; P . Hamh. 60; P . Oxy. 2,
237, col. V III 27; P . Jand. 53; P . Amh. 68
verso, col. I I 69; S B , 5761 (11. Febr.)
C a g n a t , IG R R , 1152 (doggerel verse con­
cerning M ettius); BGU, 564, col. V II 65;
(2, 374, 407).
P . Jand. 53, col. I I 5; A nn. Serv. (1912),
p. 8 8 ; CIB, 3, 37 (14. Mar. 92); (3, 29, 226).
P . Hamh. 1, 29; P . Bond. In v. N o. 1885;
W ilo k e n , Chrest. 463, col. I l l 8— 10
(1. Ju l. 94).
GIB, 141472; B Q u , 226; C a g n a t , IG R R ,
1154; (3, 70, 483).
BGU, 908, 17— 18; S B , 4, 7378; P . Oxy. 7,
1022, 2 (11. Febr. 103); P . F ay . 251
(early second century); (2, 377, 435).
C a g n a t , IG R R , 1175; P . Amh. 64, 1;
P . Hamb. 1, 31 (O ct.-N ov. 103); S B , 5217,
14 (104); P . Amh. 65, l l f f . (20. Apr. 105);
P . Bond. 3, 904, p. 125; CIB, 3, 38; P . Oxy.
3, 471; CIB, 3, 141482; BGU, 1, 329, 25;
P S I , 4, 281, 16; (3, 423, 389).
P . Amh. 65, 15; P . Vienna ined.; C a g n a t ,
IG R R , 1148 (14. May, 109); BGU, 7, 1691
(27. Jun. 109); C a g n a t , IG R R , 1259
(108/9); S B , 4, 7404, col. I I 34 and 36
(108/9); S B , 3919 (29. Mar. I l l ) ; P S I , 4,
281, 24 (20. D ec.); P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V III
27; P . Oxy. 4, 712, 22; (3, 289, 735).
S c h u b a r t , Arch. 8 (1927) 17, 1. 46 and
p. 19; B G U 1, 114; P . Vienna ined.;
P . Cattaoui, col. IV (5. Jun. 114); ibid.
col. I l l 18 (24. Oct. 114); P . Oxy. 4, 706
(c. 115); BGU, 4, 1033; W ilc k e n , Abh.
Sachs. Gea. Wiss. 27 (1909), 808, 11. 5— 8
(c. 117); P . Cattaoui, (6. Jan. 117); D itt.
OGIS, 667; P . Oxy. 1, 97; W e s s e l y ,
Stud. 4, 121. P . Am,h. 2, 70, 2; P S I , 5,
134
Q. Ram m ius Martialis 11.
— 28. Aug. 117, 4. Aug.
119.
Q. Marcius Turbo Fronto
Publicius Severus, titular
prefect of E gyp t while
holding com m and in
D acia.
T. H aterius N epos 19. Oct.
120, 13. Apr. 124.
Petroniu.s Quadratus early
second century.
T. Flavius Titianus 20. Mar.
126, 30. Jun. 132.
M. Petronius Mamertinus
11. N ov. 133, 13. Febr.
135.
A. A vidius Heliodorus
28. Jan. 138, 11. Aug. 140
Valerius Eudaem on 141/2,
26. Aug. 142.
L. Valerius Proculus 10. Jul.
144, Apr. 147.
Prefects of Egypt
447, 20; P . F ay . 322; C a g n a t , lO R R ,
1280; iU d. 1267 (3, 149, 173).
P . Oxy. 7, 1023; BGU, 140; D itt. OOIS,
678 (23. Apr. 118); C a g n a t , IG R R , 1256;
P . Giss. 2, 41, 1 ; (3, 125, 16).
W ilc k e n , Hermes 27 (1892), 472; P.
M e y e r , Hermes 32 (1897), 217— 218- (2
339, 179).
P . Beri. Leihgabe, 10, 16; C P R , 1, 18;
C IL, 39 (18. Febr. 121); B r u n s , Fontes’’
р. 277 (3. Jan. 122); BGU, 3, 742,
col. I 3; col. I I (22. Apr. 122); P . Hamb. 1,
93; (2, 127, 21).
W ilc k e n , Arch. 5 (1913), 383, no. 75.
CIL, 41 ; P . Hamb. 7; P . Oxy. 1, 34, col. IV
1— 7 (21. Aug. 127); P. Mich. 776, Τ Α Ρ Α
54 (1923), 190 (127); BGU, 459, 8 (2. Aug.
131); P . Oxy. 3, 486, 18 (9. Oct. 131);
P . M é l . V.Loret, pp. 59ff. (30. Mar. 132);
P . Hamb. 31a (21. F ebr.— 22. May);
P . R yl. 2, 113, 18 (132); P . Oslo 2, 24
(131 ?); (2, 77, 256).
P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V III; P . Oxy. 9, 1195,
1; P . R yl. 2, 113, 1 (133); P . Cattaoui,
(25. Febr. 134); CIL, 2, 44 (10. Mar. 134);
P . P a y . 21, 26— 27 (22. Mar. 134); P . Ryl.
2, 75 (May— Jun. 134); P . Oxy. 4, 726
(D eo.— Jan. 135); BGU, 1, 19, 1— 2
( 11. Febr. 135); W ilc k e n , Chrest. 26
(15. Apr. 135); P .O xy. 17,2111, 10 (c. 135);
P S I , 5, 446 (under Hadrian); P . R yl. 2,
74; P . Ryl. 2, 207, rerso; P .F lo r. 3, 319, 11.
P . Oxy. 484; C a g n a t , IG R R , 1264; BGU,
1564 (9. Sept. 138); BGU, 3, 747 (30. Mar.
139); P . F ay. 106 (5. Mar.— Apr. 140);
BGU, 1, 113, 8— 9 (16. May, 140); BGU, 1,
256, 1 (under Antoninus Pius); P . Oxy. 1,
33, col. I 5— II 2; ( 1, 187, 1168).
P . Oxy. 6, 899, 29; P . Cattaoui; P . Oxy.
2, 237, col. V n i 18 (18. Jul. 142); P . Oxy. 1,
40 (late second century); BGU, 3, 733, 14.
P . Mich. lat. 2752, 11. 6— 7 ( ?) C. Va(lerio)
Proculo; C R Inscr. (1905), p. 169; BGU,
6, 1692 (Sept. 144); BGU, 1, 288 (10. Mar.
145); BGU, 376 (17. N ov. 145); P S I , 10,
1111 (145/6); P . Ross-Oeorg. 2, 20 recto
(c. 146); P . Oxy. 8, 1102, 7 (18. N ov.
с. 146); P. Land. 3, 1159, p. 112; (3, 375,
119). -,
Prefects of Egypt
M. Petronius Honoratus
28. Aug. 147, 3. N ov. 148.
L. Munatius F elix 17. Apr.
1.50, 13. Sept. 151.
M. Sempronius Liberalis
29. Aug. 154, D ec.-Jan.
158/9.
T.FuriusViotorinus 10. July,
159.
L. Volusius Maecianus be­
fore 7. Mar. 161, 15. N ov.
161.
M. Annius Syriacus 14.Febr.
162, 9. Aug. 163.
T. Flavius Titianus Jul.-
Aug. 164, 24. Ju n. 167.
M. Bassaeus R ufus 168/9,
Mar.-Apr. 169.
135
Ann. Epigr. (1904), no. 218; W ilc k e n ,
Chrest. 212; P . Wis. ined. 24, 16 (7. Sept.
147)· BGU, 1, 265, 12— 15 (28. J a n .— 27.
Apr. 148); S B , 5217, 4 (4. Febr. 148);
P . F ay. 3 (H · N ov. 148); P . Oxy. 17, 2105
(147— 148); Arch. 4 (1908), 252 (13. Sept.);
P Preis. 1 (c· 138); P . Land. 2, 358,
p.’ 172, 5; (3, 27, 207).
P . Ryl. 2, 75, 1 ; P . Ox?/. 2, 237, col. V III 20;
P S I , 10, 1123, 4 (150/1); Milne, Greek Inscr.
9307, p. 13 (c. 151); P . Oxy. 14, 1654
(c. 150— 153); P . Land. 2, 358, p. 171, 71
(c 150); C a g n a t , IG R R , 1176 (25. May);
P S I , 5, 447, 21; P. Oslo, 2, 18 ( ?); (2, 389,
529).
BGU, 3721; P . Oxy. 594; BGU, 3, 780, 5
(Jan.— Mar. 154— 156); P . R yl. 2, 115, 20
(156) ; BGU, 2, 696, 16 (156); P . R y l. 2,
78, 3 (25. May, 157); P . Oxy. 7, 1032, 20
(157) ; P . F ay. 24,11 (158); P . Ross.-Georg. 2,
22, 19 (c. 154— 159); P . R yl. 2, 271, dated
in Thoth, the 23. year (of Antoninus Pius ?)
which would be A ug.— Sept. 159/60 but
Lett, di M axim os indicates th a t Sem ­
pronius’ successor entered Alexandria as
prefect on 10. Ju ly 159. I do not have
the R ylands papyrus before m e but it m ay
be th a t the date which is given is the
date of the propositio of a docum ent that
had been w ritten im m ediately before Sem ­
pronius’ departure, although th a t would be
an unusual procedure. The question is not
entirely clear. (3, 196, 269).
Lett, di M a x im o s; D i t t . OGIS, 707; (2, 102,
409).
P . Oxy. 653; P . Gen. 35; P . Ross.-Georg.
2, 27, 2; BGU, 613, 9; E . L evy, Zwei In ­
schriften auf den Jurist Maecianus. Sav. Z.
52 (1932), 352— 55; C IL, 14, 5347; ibid.
5348 (3, 481, 657).
BGU, 762; BGU, 7, 1694; P . Land. 328
(29. Jan. 163); CIL, 3, 14147^ (1, 62,
469a).
C a g n a t , IG P P , 1273; P . R yl. 120; P S I , 5,
447, 3— 4, 13 (16. Febr.— 1. Mar. 165);
C a g n a t , IG R R , 1112 (10. May, 166);
P . Flor. 3, 382, 67— 70 (7. Jul. 166);
P . Oxy. 4, 705, 24 (cf. Arch. 4 (1908), 218);
(2, 77, 257).
P S I , 161; BGU, 903; (1, 230, 57).
 136
Claudius Julianus (173/4 ?).
C. Calvisius Statianus
24. Febr. 170, M ay-June
175.
C. Caecilius Salvianus, ac­
ting prefect im m ediately
after C. Calvisius S tatia­
nus (?) 1. Apr. 176.
T. Pactum eius Magnus
175/6, 30. D ec. 177.
A teius ( ?) Sanctus after T.
Pactum eius Magnus, b e­
fore 17. Mar. 180.
F lavius Crispus 14. Ju l.—
14. Oct. 180/1.
Veturius Macrinus 4. Jul.
181, Apr.-May, 183.
Prefects of Egypt
P . Marm arica 9, 17. The editors read the
date the fourteenth year of Marcus A u­
relius. P u t Claudius Julianus cannot have
I T. Longaeus R ufus May-
June, 185, Sept. N ov. 185.
Prelects of Egypt
P . Amh. 2, 107; P . Oxy. 2, 237, col. V 5;
C a g n a t , IG R R , 1102; BOU, 807; P . Amh.
2, 108; P . R yl. 2, 85, 10; P . R y l. 2, 274;
137
been prefect in 173/4, as W ile k e n points P . R yl. 2, 275; S B , 4, 7362, 2— 5 (19. Ju l.
out (Aegyptus 13 (1933), 45; c/. Arch. 10 — 27. Sept. 185/6).
(1932) 95) because Calvisius Statianus was Pom ponius Faustianus Dec. P.O æ y. 2, 237, col. V 27; P Ö P , 842, col. I l l ;
in office from 170 to, at least, May— June, Jan. 185/6, 10. Sept. 187. P . Amh. 79 (c. 186).
175. Nor is there hardly room for him in M. Aurelius Papirius D io ­ P . Oxy. 8, I l i o , 6— 8 ; C a g n a t , IG R R , 1,
the rem aining years of the reign of the nysius 187/8. 135; (1, 212, 1283).
joint emperors, since Caecilius Salvianus, Tineius Dem etrius Aug. 190. P . Teh. 336.
Pactum eius, Sanctus, and Flavius Crispus Claudius Lucilianus 25. Sept. P . Bas. 2, 7— 8.
follow in close succession down to 180. 190.
There is a short period available for him Larcius Memor 8. Apr. 192. P . R yl. 77, 36.
between Annius Syriacus (last attested date Polliaenus F lavianus under C a g n a t , IG R R , 1050.
Aug. 163) and Flavius Titianus (first date Commodus.
known for him J u l.— Aug. 164) and about Appius Sabinus under Com­ Ann. Epigr. (1912), 136.
the sam e period both before and after modus.
Bassaeus R ufus. The fourteenth year of Mantennius Sabinus 6. Mar. BGU, 646; C a g n a t , IG R R , 1062; (2 ,3 3 1 ,
A ntoninus Pius is already taken b y Mu- 193, 21. Apr. 194. 131).
natius F elix, although three years between M. U lpius Prim ianus 194/5, C a g n a t , I G R R , 1290e; C IL , 3, 51; CIG,
Munatius F elix and Sempronius Liberalis 23. Febr. 196. 3, 4863, col. IV (23. Sept. 195).
are open. One is tem pted to think of a Q. Aem ilius Saturninus BGU, 15, col. I I ; S B , 3, 6223; ( 1, 36,278).
possible identification of the Claudius Lu- 11. Ju ly, 197, 23. Sept.
cilianus in P . Bas. 2, 7— 8 (25. Sept. 190) 198.
w ith Claudius Julianus. (c/. 1, 382, 718 and Magnius F elix Crescentillia- P . Oxy. 9, 1185 (c. 200).
726). nus under Severus ( ?).
Aegyptus 13 (1933) no. 4, 45— 50; P . Oxy.
Q. Maecius Laetus 199/200, P . Oxy. 705, 40; P S I , 199; P . Oxy. 8,
1451; P . Mèi. P . Thomas (1930), 443,
26. Febr. 203. 1111, 3— 4 (203); W i l c k e n , Chrest. 461,
4— 5 (22. Jun. 174); CIL, 12048; P S I , 3, 4— 5; (2, 319, 43).
235; (1, 294, 291).
Subatianus Aquila 202/3, Euseb. H. E. 6, 3, 3; P . Flor. 6 ; P . Oxy.
In BOU, 327 he is called “the iuridicus 8, 1100, 5 (Oct.— N ov. 206); P . Gen. 1, 16;
succeeding to the prefecture.” I t is prob­ 23. J u ly, 210.
ihid. 2, cols. X V III— X I X (11. Oct. 207);
able that he took over the office im m e­ P . Lond. 3, 1220, p. 114, 14 (202— 207);
diately upon the rem oval of C. Calvisius S B , 4639 (Sept.— Jan. 209); P S I , 10,
Statianus, who was still prefect in May 1148 (4. Jan. 210); C a g n a t , IG R R , 1185
— June, 175, since the iuridicus became (15. Apr. 210); P S I , 9, 1052, 3 (208— 10);
acting prefect usually only upon the un­
(3, 276, 681).
exp ected term ination of the prefect’s
L. Baebius Aurelius Jun- P . Giss. 40, col. II; P . Oxy. 12, 1408, 21;
tenure. P . Bond. 2, p. 173 has remains of
cinus 29. Jan. 213, C IL , 10, 7580 ( ?); L. Cantarelli, Aegyptus,
a nam e which m ay be identified as Sal­
16. Mar. 215. 7 (1926), 282— 84 suggests the dates for
vianus; c/. P . Gen. 1, 4; ( 1, 253, 58).
Baebius Juncinus 211— 14, and Flavius as
P . F ay. 159; S B , 4, 7362, 10; P . B yl. 2,
cognom en. H e does n ot think that the
273 (176/7); B G V , 970 (28. Mar. 177);
prefect is identical w ith Juncinus, the
P . Teh. 2, 303, 17; C a g n a t , IQ R R , 1145;
governor of Sardinia.
P . Oxy. 3, 635; (3, 5, 27).
P . Oxy. 3, 635; ( 1, 172, 1066?). S ep tim iu s H e ra c litu s BOU, 362, col. V II; P . Flor. 2, 88, 10;
16. Mar. 215. P . Oxy. 10, 1313 ( ?); (3, 209, 330).
Aurelius A ntinous, acting P . Rein 49, 6 ; Stud. 1, p. 21 i.
BGU, 1, 12, 13. prefect 215/6.
Valerius D atus 12. Mar. 216, P . Lond. 935; P . Lond. 936; BOU, 159,
D i t t . OGIS, 708; BG V , 847; P. M e y ^ r, 16. Mar. 217. 6— 14 (216); Stud. 1, 2 7 f.; BOU, 1, 266
B P h W . (1901), 244— 45 (3, 417, 361). (215/16); (3, 356, 46).
 138
Julius Basilianus 217/8.
Geminius Chrestus 13. Aug.
219, 4. Mar. 220.
L. D om itius Honoratus
1. Jan. 222.
M. Aediniu.s Julianus 223.
Valerius 3rd ( ?) year of
Alexander Severus. 223/4.
Aurelius Lycaon before
229/30 ( ?).
Epagathus after 228.
Claudius Masculinus 12.May
231.
Aurelius Zenon Januarius
231.
M aevius Honoratianus Dec.
— Jan. 231, 29. N ov. 236.
Annianus 241.
C. Julius Priscus before
Philip.
Aurelius Basileus 18. Aug.
242, Apr.-May, 245.
Claudius Valerius Firmus
21. May 245, A ug.-Sept.
247.
Aurelius Appius Sabinus
14. Sept. 249, 17, Ju l.250.
Lissinius Proculus, acting
prefect second or third
century.
L. Mussius Aemilianus, ac­
ting prefect and prefect
before 24. Sept. 258,
Sept.-O ct. 259.
Aurelius Theodotus 14. Aug.
262, 8. N ov. 262.
Claudius Firmus c. 264/5.
Cussonius 28. Mar. 266.
Prefects of Egypt Prefects of Egypt 139
Ann. Epigr. (1905), no. 54; ( 1, 229, 50). Juvenius Genialis 266, P . Teb. 2, 326; CPHerm. 119; P . Oxy. 17,
C a g n a t , IG R B , 1179; P. Grenfell, 149 15. Ju ly 267. 2130, 22— 23 (15. May, 267); (2, 254, 586
( 220/ 1). gives Juvencus (sic.).
P . Oxy. 1, 62 recto·, (2, 22, 130 ?). Julius Marcellinus 271. P S I , 10, 1101.
Aurelius Proculinus third P . Rein. 51, 3. 6. 11.
P . Oxy. 35 recto·, P . Flor. 57, 27; (1, 11, 92). century.
B. A. von G r o n in g e n , Mnemosyne 55 Poniponius Anubianus P . Thead. 18.
(1927) 263— 67. third or fourth century.
Stud. 2, p. 31, second papyrus, 1. 6. Hadrianus Sallustius P . Oxy. 9, 1191, 3— 4; P . Amh. 6, 137, 4.
7. N ov. 280.
Dio 80, 2, 4; (2, 36, 49). Celerinus 282 ( ?). Claudian, Epithal. Palladii. 25, 72, p. 304
P S I , 10, 1112, 4; P . Lond. 3, 946, 31ff., (Birt).
and W i l c k e n ’s brilliant restoration. Arch. Pom ponius Januarius P . Oxy. 8, 1115, 4.
10 (1932), 251. 21. May, 284.
References as under Masculinus. 31. Aurelius D iogenes after P . Oxy. 12, 1456, 8.
Oct. 284, before Mar. 286.
C a g n a t , IG R R , 1143; Aegyptus 13 (1933), Flavius Valerius Pom- P . Oxy. 6, 8 8 8 ; P . Oxy. 10, 1252, 28. 43.
169ff.; GIG, 3, 4705 (Jun. 232); S B , 5676. peianus Sept.-O ct. 287, 38; P . Amh. 2, 137, 28 (5. J u ly, 288/9);
3 (4. Jul. c. 232); P. Amh. 2, 67, 13 (c. 232); 15. Sept. 289. P . Oxy. 12, 1503, 13. 16. 19 (288/9);
P . Amh, 80, 13 (20. Aug. 233); P . Flor. 1, P , Oxy. 14, 1642, 3 (289).
56, 10 and 18 (10. Oct. 233); S B , 3, 6305 Aem ilius R usticanus, acting P . Oxy. 9, 1469.
(235?); S B , 4, 7329; (2, 374, 411). prefect 298.
P . Strassh. 41, 47; P . L ips. 1, 32, 11; Aelius Publius 19. Aug. 299. P . Oxy. 9, 1204, 7— 8.
P . Oxy. 17, 2104, 19— 21 (Aug.); P S I , 10, Clodius Culcianus 28. Febr. P . Oxy. 71; P . Oxy. 8, 1104; P . Oxy. 6,
1102 . 303, 29. May, 306. 895, 8 (May, 305); P S I , 6, 716, 5 and 15
CIL, 6, 1638 (2, 208, 329 ?). (306).
P .O x y . 10, 1277 verso; P . Flor. 4; (1 ,1 9 7 .
1215 ?).
P . Oxy. 1466; P . Oxy. 1418; P . Oxy. 10,
1271, 6 and 12 (26. Apr. 246); P . Oxy. 4,
720 (7. Jan. 247); P . Amh, 81, 5 (29. Aug.
247); (2, 60, 125).
S B , 1010; C P R , 2 0 ,5 ; P . Oxy. 17, 2132;
(1, 196, 1209a).
P S I , 7, 870, 6.
A cting: Euseb. H. P . 7, 11, 9; P . Oxy. 12,
1468.
Prefect: P . Oxy. 9, 1201, 21— 22; P . Ryl.
n o , 7; P . Oxy. 14, 1637, 9; J. G. Milne,
Aemilianus, the Tyrant. J E A 10 (1924),
80— 82; (1, 24, 205).
P .S tra ß b . 5, 2 1 ; P .O x y . 17, 2107; (3, 311,
120 ?).
P . O x y . 9, 1194; Meyer, Hermes 33 (1898)
268— 70; W ilc k e n , Zur Geschichte des
Usurpators Achilleus. Sitzb. pr. Ak. 36
(1927), 270— 76; cf. A. Stein, RE, III 2721
and V I 2383.
P . Ryl, 165. *1
 Edicts of Prefects 141

P re fe c t S u b ject D ate Reference

T. F laviu s Ti- Concerning the Registra-
tianus tio
' n of ^ D o-------in
cu m en ts in
th e P u b lic R eco rd O ffi­
ces. 127 M itte is ,
Chrest. 188.
M. Petronius Regarding the H olding of
M amertinus the Conventus. 133 P . R y l. 2, 74;
W ilcken,
Arch. 6
APPENDIX II
(1920), 373.
M. Petronius Concerning R equisitions 133 -37 P S l , 5, 446.
E D IC T S O F P R E F E C T S * Mamertinus
M. Petronius Concerning the Giving of
Prefect Subject D ate Mamertinus Receipts. 134 P . F ay . 21.
Reference
A. A vilius Flac- Prohibiting the Carrying Valerius Eu- Forbidding the Bringing
eus of W eapons. 34 daemon of V exatious Law Suits
W ilc k e n ,
A gainst Creditors by
Chrest. 13. 142 P . Oxy. 2, 237,
L. Aem ilius A ccom panying the Letter Debtors.
R ectus of Claudius to the A lex­ col. V III 7
andrians. 41 — 18.
B e l l , Jews and
L. Valerius Unclear. Perhaps concer­
Christians, 1. ning Court Procedure. 17. N ov. 145 BGU, 1, 288.
L. Aem ilius Forbidding Unauthorized Proculus
R ectus R equisitions. 42 W ilc k e n , Concerning a Celebration
M. Petronius
Chrest, 439. H onoratus for a Member of the
Gn. Vergilius Concerning E xactions by Imperial Household. 147/8 P . Oxy. 17,
Capito Officials and Soldiers. 49 D i t t . CGIS 2105.
665. L. Munatius Probably concerning Im -
L. Lusius Geta Granting Exem ption from Eelix m unities Granted to
Cultivation of State Citizens of Antinoepolis 151 P . Jan d 140
Lands to Priests. 64 D i t t . CGIS, M. Sem pronius Commanding a Return to
664. 154 W ilc k e n ,
Ti. Julius A lex ­ Concerning Various A d ­ Liberalis Place of Residence.
ander Chrest. 19.
m inistrative Matters. 69 D i t t . CGIS,
669. L. M antennius Proclaim ing a Celebration
M. M ettius Concerning the R egistra­ Sabinus in Honor of the A cces­
R ufus tion of A bstracts of sion of Pertinax. 193 W ilc k e n ,
Titles. 89 M itte is , Chrest. 490.
Chrest, 192. Magnius Felix
C. Vibius M ax­ Commanding a Return to eight-
Crescentilli- Concerning the
imus Place of Residence. 104 W ilc k e n , anus drachma tax. c. 200 P . Oxy. 9,
Chrest. 202. 1185.
S. Sulpicius Concerning the R egistra­
Sim ilis U nknow n Against the Malpractises
tion of A bstracts of
of the TeAcùrai second
Titles. 107— 112 P . Oxy. 2, 237, ce n tu ry Princeton U n i­
col. V III 21 versity P a p y ­
— 27. rus A . M .
* B O U , 3, 820 and 832 are wrongly classified as ‘ Erlasse von Un- 8931.
bekannt” in Arch. 1 (1901), 548. The one, 820, is an acoount of some S u b a tia n u s Concerning E x to rtio n b y
kind while 832 is certainly a land lease. ) A q u ila Officials. 206 P . O x y . 8,1100.
 142 Edicts of Prefects Edicts of Prefects 143

Prefect Subject Prefect Subject D ate Reference

D ate Reference
L. Baebius Au- Concerning the Suppres- Valerius Eu- Exem ption of W omen
relius Jun- sion of Robbers, 213— 5 P . Oxy. 12, daemon from C ultivation of 141/2
cinus State Lands. P . Oxy. 6, 899,
1408, 11— 26. 29.
F laviu s Valer- Concerning the Appoint-
ius Pom pei- m ent of Guardians, U nknown Concerning Exem ption of
287 M itte ls,
anus Soldiers from Liturgies before 172
ehrest. 329. A fter Discharge. W ile k e n ,
A ristius Opta- A ccom panying the Tax ehrest. 396,
tus (? ) Schedules of D iocletian. 16. Mar. Boak, Ét. de 1— 6 .
297 P a p . II U nknown E xem pting W om en from
(1933), no. 1. Liturgies. before 180 W ile k e n ,
ehrest. 394,
21— 29.
R E F E R E N C E S TO ED IC TS E X C L U SIV E OF R O U T IN E U nknow n E xem pting Slaves of
ED IC TS O R D E R IN G TH E C E N SU S E T C E T . Priests of a Certain
Temple from Labor on
Caius Turra- Making an A llotm ent of the D ikes. second
nius Land. 7_4 P. Oxy. 12, century W ile k e n ,
1434, 15. ehrest. 83, 5.
M .M agiusM ax- Concerning R equisitions 12 Valerius D atus Commanding a R eturn to
D it t . 0Q I8 Place of R esidence. 216/7 W ile k e n ,
im us 665, 27. ehrest. 408,
Ti. Julius A lex- Exem ption of W omen 5— 7.
ander from C ultivation of
State Lands. 66—69 P . Oxy. 6, 899,
28.
1 ’

U nknow n Concerning the Place of

Residence of th e A lex­
andrian Jew s. Before 117 W ile k e n ,
Sachs. Oes.
IFm s . 27(1909),
812, 813, 819.
M. R utilius Lu- Regarding the Jews, c. 117 W ile k e n , AöÄ.
pus
Sachs. Ges.
IF iss.27(1909),
808 809.
M. R utilius Lu- R egulating the Expenses
of the Gymnasiarchy. 114— 117 W ile k e n ,
ehrest. 149.
Q. R am m ius Concerning the Alexan-
Martialis ( ?) drian Jews. c. 118/9 W i l e k e n , A 6Ä..
Sachs. Ges.
Wiss.21 (1909),
811.
Petronius Unclear. Threatening Con-
Quadratus fiscation of Property of
Certain Trouble Makers. early
second
century W ile k e n ,
Arch. 5 S
(1913), 383.
 Indices 145

H eptanom ia 11, lOOf. peregrinus 115

Herm opolis 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 43, poremptorius 97
65, 78, 98, 115f. perfectissim us 10
honesta m issio 122ff. Pharos 33
hypom nem atograph 1S Philadelphia 110
Philae 32, 120
idiologus 8 f., 14, 21, 26, 28f., 31 f., phyla 31
48f., 55f., 69, 90, 102, 116, 128 physicians 22, 118
im m unitas 124 poll ta x (see also syntaxis) 32, 60,
IN D IC E S Imperium 7, 102, 115 67, 72f.
incola 19 portitores 124
I. English and Latin inspection trips 99, 101 praetor (see j i g a H T c o g )
instrum enta (pracfccti) 43, 105, praetoria 55 n. 6, 79
accusatio falsi vel calum niae 113 I conventus 8, 61f., 64f., 78, 89ff.,
123 praetorian guard 4, 7, 129
acting prefect 5, 7, 55 I 94, 98ff., 115f.
iuridicus 5, 7f., 63, 90, 96, 102, priests 21, 28 — 33
A cts of th e Martyrs 38 Coptus 25, 63, 81, 99ff„ 117
104 procurator (general) 62, 76, 90f.,
agoranom us 17 cosm ete 18
agrimensor 13 iurisdictio voluntaria 102 110, 115
cultivation (of state lands) 21, 30,
ala 119 ius edicendi 45 — (at port) 33
32, 46, 52, 56, 92f„ 116
ius gladii 7, 115 - (usiacus) 8, 78, 102
A lexandrians 4 —6, 19, 35ff., 52, 73 curator 110
am nesty 68, 70f. ius trium liberorum 87, lOOff. propositio 57, 94
annona 35, 59, 79f., 129 prytanis 17, 18f., 62, 110
debitores fiscales 112f.
A ntinoe 4, 37, 93 Ptolem ais 27
decurio 122 lease (of public lands) 38, 39
A ntinoopolis 22, 27 publicani 49f., 64
D elta 11, 35 n. 3, 100, 121 n. 1 legi 92
archidicastes 44, 90, 95f., 100, 102, depositum 102f., 106 legion 119, 120ff.
111, 128 recognovi 92
dioecetes 7, 61, 89f., 102, 128 L ex Ju lia et T itia 110
archiereus 18, 27ff., 32 diplom ata 84 R ed Sea 63f.
L ex Plaotoria 105, 109
archiprophetes 32 dux A egypti 120 rescripsi 92
libellus 86ff., 93
archon 15, 18 rescript 9, 18, 20, 22, 43, 45, 62,
Library of Hadrian 44, 117
Arsinoe, 11, 26, 43, 66, 69, 100, 116 eclogistes 13, 49, 62f., 82, 104, 114, 55, 57f., 94, 104, 109, 114
assessor 104 117 Memphis 3, 35 n. 3, 81, 98, lOOf.,
athlete 22, 56, 66 edictum translaticium 49 f. senate 24, 54f., 65
119
aurum coronarium 56, 61 egregius 10 senators 1, 7, 10, 55, 119
M enelaites 36
eirenarch 25 Sicily 59
m issio in rem 111
B abylon 81, 119 Elephantine 56, 120 sitologus 25, 30, 65
m unera coporalia 23
basilicogram m ateus I l f . , 24, 30, 38, em ancipatio 109 Socnopaeus N esus 16, 21, 116
41, 64, 78, 92 ephebe 20, 33, 41, 73 statues 2 f.
beneficiarius 13, 79 Nanaeum 44 strategus (acting) 11, 41
ephebeia 73
bonorum possessio 47, 92 N eapolis 52 subsoriptio 23, 26, 33f., 40, 42, 57,
epistrategus 4f., 14ff., 21 —30, 39
Busiris 4 n. 1, 30 f. N icopolis 80 59, 89ff., 95, 123
n. 6, 40, 63, 73, 80, 83, 89f„
N ile 2, 3, 8, 28, 49, 62, 66, 90 Syene 56, 119f.
9 4 - 9 6 , 102, 104, 108, 126, 128
Caesareum Magnum 124 nilom eter 34, 62 syn taxis 30, 72
Ethiopia 120
catholicus 8, 77 n. 4 N ilopolis 16
eutheniarch 17, 35, 79
censitor 69 nomarch 95
evocatio 95 —97 tax farmers (see publicani) 38, 83
cessio bonorum 18ff., 87, 113f., 117 exegete 18, 73, 110 ta x collectors 25f., 61, 63f., 83, 117,
citizenship, Alexandrian 37, 56, 73; Oxyrhynchus 17—19, 26f., 34, 37, 120
R om an 36, 107, 122f. flight (from liturgies) 6 9 ff. 62, 76, 79f., 93, 101, 122 testatio 93
a cognitionibus 12 Thebaid 11, 61f., 66, 79f., 82, 100,
coloni (Caesaris) 60 gnomon 34, 63, 83, 128 passport 33 120, 122
com arch 16, 44 gnom onof theidiologus 8, 48, 60, 108 pastophorus 29, 31 Them istes 61 n. 1
a com m entariis 12, 82 grain supply for Rom e 2, 7 Patrioa 42, 57 tiro 122
com ogram m ateus 66, 77, 117 gram m ateus 77 ^ Pelusium 3, 9 9 —101 toparch 24, 63
con stitutio 45, 64 gym nasiarch 17 —20 peregrina 110 topogram m ateus 64, 98
B e i n m n t h , The Prefect oi Egypt 10
 146 Indices 147
Indices
tutor 110 veteran 21 f„ 25, 7 2 - 7 4 , 88 η. 4,
τέλος καταλοχιαμών 65 υπόμνημα 42 n. 3, 85
Tym bo 81 122, 124ff.
τελώναι (see also ta x collectors and ύπομνηματισμός 12, 42 f., 104
viaticum 79
usucapio 109 publicani), 65, 83, 105
τεύχος 42, 43 n. 1 φόρος (άργυρικός) 66
X ois 100 φροντιστής 110
vectigal 64, 124 τόμος (επικρίσεων) 42, 74, 123

υπογραφή (see also subscriptio), 89ff. χειριστής 54

υποκείμενα 12, 61 n. 4 χωματικόν 30
II. Greek
αγγαρεία 83 επιταγή 63
αιρετής 12 επίτροπος 9, 13 III. Nam es of Persons
αναπομπή 102 ευθηνία 35, 48
άπογραφή 67 η. 1, 68 M. A edinius Julianus 20 Cicero 26, 48f., 83 n. 6, 129
έφοδοι 126 Claudius 4, 9, 13, 52, 56, 60, 65, 71
αποδημία 8 A elius Asclepiades 22
άποδος 93 A elius Gallus 120 Ti. Claudius Balbillus 60, 61 n. 1,
ήγεμών 9, 98
άρχιστάτωρ 13 L. Aem ilius R ectus 52, 60, 84 65, 128 n. 4
άρχιστράτωρ 13 Aem ilius Saturninus 39, 61, 91 Claudius Firm us 121
ιδία 67, 69 η. 6, 70, 71, 122 Claudius Julianus 115
άρχιταβλάριος 12 Annianus 43, 57
άστικοΐ νόμοι 114 Annius Syriacus 78 n. 2 Ti. Claudius Sarapion 90 f.
κοινόν 43, 57
ατέλεια 117 A nthony 120 Cleopatra 120
κράτιστος 9, 98 Clodius Culcianus 26, 44, 69
κρίσις (ήγεμονική) 57 A ntonius Pius 10, 69
βασιλικοί 84 Appius Sabinus 34 Commodus 128
βήμα 115 Asclepiades 30 Corbulo 32
λαμπρότατος 10 C. Cornelius Gallus 1, 6, 32f., 120,
βιβλίδιον 85 A tticus 49
λαογραφία (see also poll ta x and 128
βιβλιοθήκη 12 η. 6, 25 η. 2, 42, 75 A ugustus 4 n. 1, 7, 28, 84, 102, 112,
syntaxis), 30, 31
βιβλιοφνλαξ 12, 42 ληστοπιασταί 125 119f., 130
βουλευτής 17 Aurelian 121 D iocletian 56, 69, 130
Aurelius A ntinoüs 55, 68, 70, 77 n. 4 D om itius H onoratus 23 \
νομογραφός 42
γή χέρσος 78 Aurelius Horion 33 D om itian 48, 76, 124f., 129
νομοθεσία (θεία) 57
γνώμων, see Gnomon Marcus Aurelius 20 D ionysia 86, 103f., 108
Aurelius Theodotus 121
ξένη, ξένος 69, 70
οι από τοϋ γυμνασίου 73 ξένια 83 A vidius Cassius 6, 121 Epagathus 7, 129
A vidius Heliodorus 6, 25, 74 n. 4, Eudaem on, .see Valerius Eudaomon
διάγνωσις 91 όγδόη 61 80, 105 n. 2, 121, 128
διάγραμμα 45 A vilius Flaccus 4 — 6, 57, 59f., 79, Firm us 6
οικογένεια 67 η. 1, 71, 72 η. 2, 73
διαδεχόμενος 7, 8 116, 118, 121f., 125, 129 Flaccus, see A vilius Flaccus
ονηλασία 39
διαλογισμός 98 ff. T. Flavius T itianus 20, 27, 43, 51,
διασημότατος 10 παράγγελμα 45 Baobius 55, 80 74 n. 4, 77 n. 5, 108, 110, 128
διαστρώματα 77 Baebius Juncinus 50, 116, 126 n. 3, 127
παρουσία 79
διάταγμα 45, 107 Balbillus, see Ti. Claudius Balbillus
πολίτευμα 37
δικαιώματα 123 πορεία 22 Basilides 13, 82
Bassaeus R ufus 62, 78 n. 2 Galba 47
δικαστήριον 100, 115 πράκτωρ 1 4 -1 6 , 21, 61 η. 1, 62, 64, Gallienus 22, 121
δόγμα 45 111, 114 Berenice 63, 81
Geminius Chrestus 77 n. 4, 79
προαιρέτης 12, 42 B ith ynia 43
Germanicus 55, 79
έδάφη (δημόσια) 39 πρόγραμμα 45 Gessius Serenus 32
εισκρισις 73 C. Caecilius Salvianus 5
προγράφειν 112 Geta 129
έκθεμα 45 πρόσοδος 63, 99 C. Caecina Tuscus 5
Gordiani 83
εκφόρια 39 πρόσταγμα 45 Caligula 4, 6, 57
έπαρχος 9, 45, 63 προτεθήτω 51, 93 Callinicus 117
επιδημία 79 C. Calvisius Statianus 6, 74 n. 4, Hadrian 9, 15, 22, 27, 38f., 47, 54,
πρωτοπραξία 49 57 n. 4, 66, 79, 115 n. 3, 126, 129
έπίσταλμα 42 οί ίν συμβουλίφ 104 78 n. 2, 120, 124, 128
έπιστολή 85 Caracalla 18, 20, 24, 32, 35, 54, H aterius N epos 106
συνκολλήσιμον 42 H iberius 5
58, 70f., 101, 109, 114 129
10 +
148 Indices Indices 149

Ti. Julius A lexander 2, 4, 8, 22, 35 f., Petronius Secundus 129 V eturius Maorinus 74 n. 4, 124 V itrasius Pollio 9
39, 45, 47ff., 52f., 60, 62, 65, 82, P lautus Italu s 24 C. Vibius Maximus 3, 16, 44, 66, 67, L. Volusius Maecianus 89, 129
103, 111, 114, 117, 129 P lin y 26 74 n. 4, 98, 122, 128
C. Julius A quila 66 C. Pom peius P lanta 48, 56, 129
Julius B asilianus 7 Pom ponius F austianus 103
Julius Caesar 1 Pom ponius Januarianus 80 ΙΛ^. Papyri
C. Julius P ostum us 60, 65, 94 Pom ponius Metrodorus 4 Ρ. A chm iin 164, 71
Julius Sopator 78 n. 2 Postum us, see C. Julius Postum us 7, 18 176, 21, 85
C. Julius Theon 27
I*. .Nmb. 180, 22
C. Julius V estinus (high priest) 28f. Ram m ius Martialis 47, 55, 66, 107 184, 77
27, 105
C. Julius V estinus (prefect) 27, 60, R utilius Ltipus 19, 37, 74 n. 4, 90 195, 94
65f., 76, 129 64, 15, 98
n. 7, 106, 114 65, 21, 98 198, 78
M. Ju niu s R ufus 48, 96, 124 226, 95, 98
66, 89, 103
Juvenius Gonialis 22 Sabinianus 80 67, 104 250, 28f.
Sabinus 69 68 v e r s o 27, 60 256, 15f., 22, 87
Laberius M aximus 125
Hadrianus Sallustius 24 70, 20 265, 75
Lam po 13, 82 266, 79, 81
Sanctus 128 72, 107
Longaeus R ufus 103 267, 109
Seius Strabo 4 77, 64
Lucian 12
Sempronius Liberalis 40, 51 n. 2, 80, 105 288, 104
Lusius Geta 21, 32, 116 324, 74
63, 6 9 f., 74 n. 4, 78, 92, 112, 125 81, 95, 103
Seneca 3, 5 83, 69 325, 125
Maorinus 7
Septim ius Severus 18, 20, 24, 32, 107, 80 327, 7, 107
Maecius Laetus 4, 34, 123, 129
43, 54, 56, 58, 71, 101, 109, 114 108, 80 329, 104
M aevius H onoratianus 105 n. 2
C. Septim ius V egetus 94, 96, 105 137, 40 345, 65
Magius Maximus 52, 56, 84f.
n. 2, 113 Ρ. Bad. 3 6 P , 90
Mamertinus, see Petronius Mamcr-
Sertorius Macro 4 72, 107 372, 16, 46, 51, 69f., 126
tinus
Severus A lexander 7, 43, 51 n. 2, B ell, Jew s and Christians 378, 85, 88
Marcellus 77 n. 4
56, 108 p. 24, 4, 9, 56 379, 77
Marcius Turbo 38
Stephanie 13 p. 27, 52 381, 80
Marius Seoundus 7
Subatianus A quila 16, 68, 77, 78 P. Berl. Leihgabe BGU 2
M ettius R ufus 9, 25, 52, 63, 75—77,
n. 2, 84, lO lf., 109, 115, 116 n. 5 9, 80 420, 77
93, 105 n. 2, 109, 113, 116 n. 2
Sulpicius Sim ilis 16, 21, 28, 52, 98, 10 , 111 448, 89, 92
Minicius Italu s 13, 25 n. 2, 26, 65
75, 129 105 n. 2, 114 23, 17 459, 77
(1. D ec. 162), 71 473, 18, 114
L. M unatius F elix 74, 92, 113, 126
Tiberius 4 —6, 13, 60, 129 P. Berol. 484, 77
Mussius A em ilianus 6, 32, 121
' Tineius D em etrius 63 13, 896, 73 525, 43, 93
Nero 4 n. 1, 9f., 32, 72, 76, 83 Trajan 13, 48, 56, 57 n. 4, 119, 120, BGU 1 572, 61
N erva 48, 129 129 3, 34 582, 89
C. Turranius 4 n. 1, 26, 30ff., 37, 06 12 , 101 613, 43, 107
O ctavian I f., 124 13, 13 6 I 43, 107
P. Octavius 30 Ulpius Prim ianus 77 n. 4 15, 19, 39 628 v e r s o 52, 124
19, 25, 106 646, 51
Pacovius F elix 108 Valerian 120 26, 110 648, 21, 50, 87
Pactum eius Magnus 66, 93 53, 77 696, 119, 122
Valerius D atus 7, 68, 70
Palm yra 121 93 99 BGU 3
Valerius Eudaem on 21, 52, 92 113
C. Petronius 120 117f. 114, 43, 90, 92, 100, 103, 105, 106 729, 90
M. Petronius H onoratus 74 n. 4 Valerius Firm us 20, 80 136, 90 745, 110
105 n. 2 139, 77f. 747, 25
Valerius Pom peianus 17, 40, 110
Petronius M amertinus 27, 44, 53 140, 47, 55, 107 762, 81
Valerius Proculos 79
64f., 84, 100, 106, 1 1 3 f.,’ n e 159, 16, 67f., 70 780, 75
Vergilius Capito 52, 82, 83, 116, 122 807, 80
n. 4, 117 Vespasian 1 161, 107
P e tro n iu s Q u a d ra tu s 117, 126 163, 103 823, 107
V estinus, see Julius Vestinus
 150 Indices
Indices 151
BGU 3 ; P. Cattaoui 43
842, 80 P. Fay. 31, 75
P. Chic, 322, 52 - 31 a, 75
847, 74, 124 J 29, 104
888, 90 P. Flor. 1 81, 62
891, 96 ; Mittels, Chrest. 6. 68, 71, 86, 102 P, Jand
29, 97 32, 77 I 8, 95
903, 62
80, 113 55, 111 36, n o
904, 40
241, 111 56, 111 53, 39, 93, 101, 105
908, 65, 100
362, 108 61, 94, 113, 118 68, 45, 54
915, 64
372, col. V I, 72 P. Flor. 2 Meyer, Jur. Pap.
970, 93
374, 114 34, 17 3, 90
973, 77, 78
W ilcken, Chrest. 36, 42 4, 67
BGU 4 98, 52
13, 50 f., 116, 122 9, 109
1019, 90
15, 126 278, 81, 121 13, 91
1022 , 22 312, 43
16, 126 14, 109
1023, 31 17, 126 319, 87 27, 47, 92
1024, 118 18, 126 382, 20, 25, 73 49, 111
1033, 74, 124 412, 20
19, 69f., 112, 126 79, 97
1038, 111 35, 26 P. Gen.
1047, 77 P. Leipz.
87, 28 16, 71
1073, 66 i 4, 17
153, 27, 34 27, 77
1074, 56 44, 56
156, 56 P. Giss. 1 52, 96
1078, 99 202, 67
1084, 110 19, 112 66 , 22
396, 22 24, 38 121, 90
1085, col. I I I , 43 414, 79
1086, 25 27, 38 123, 12, 42
457, 122 34, 96 P. Leipz. Inv.
1139, 85, 88 461, 123
1140, 37 40, 52, 55, 69 136, 109
462, 124 41, 11, 38 P. Lond. 1
1185, 63
412, 79 P. Giss. 2 p. 50, 76
1189, 63
413, 80 p. 41, 70 p. 234, 79
1196, 31
463, col. III, 124 84, col. II, 118, 125 P. Lond. 2
1197, 30
467, 46 92, 85 pp. 42 —46, 73
1198, 30
P, Cornell P. Giss. Bibi. p. 74, 81
1199, 31
19, 77 16, 4 p. 133, 91
1200, 30
20, 77 P. Goodsp. p. 151, 77
1201, 30
CPHerni 29, 107 p. 152, 96
BGU 5, 8, 56 52, 65 P. Graux
8, 108 119 v e r so 22, 56 1'·
! 2, 16, 71 p. 165, 49
21, 108 CPB P . gr. Berol.
1 P· 148, 29
37, 116 18, 12, 43, 90, 106 35, 115
40, 36 p. 149, 96
20, 16, 19, 114 P . Grenî. 1 p. 150, 77
5 8 - 6 3 , 69 28, 76 49, 77
64, 33, 72 P· 152, 96
P. Fay. P . G reni. 2 P· 167, 107
6 6 - 6 8 , 33, 72 20, 51, 56 56, 78
BGU 7 P· 171, 88f.,
21, 44, 53, 64, 113, 116 P . Gron. P· 172, 98
1564, 80 24, 51, 70 1 69
1573, 111 P· 175, 92
31, 77 P . Hanib. 1 P· 255, 81
1574, 111 32, 77 pp. 123—126, 97 P. Lond. 3
1690, 72 33, 78
P. B ourlant
pp. 1 3 1 - 1 3 6 , 73f. P· 30, 68
66, 118 4, 96 P· 107 v e r s o
13, 38 117, 11
P . Bremen 11, 78 P· 110, 77
119, 103 18, 42, 56, 93 P· 112, 4, 79
17, 89 216, 77 29, 96f. P· 114, 16
 152 Indices
Indices 153
P. Lond. 3 283, 94
p. 125, 44, 67f., 71, 122* 284, 83 P, Oxy. 8 1668, 71
p. 132, 87 285, 83, 86 1121, 13, 85, 96 I 1722, 13
p. 133, 66 I 294, 13, 82, 96 1143, 31 I P. Oxy. 17
p. 215, 56 [ 364, 91 P. Oxy. 9 2104, 43, 57
p. 239, 79 i P. Oxy. 3 1151, 24 i 2107, 25
1155, 29 2111, 89, 104f.
P . Mich. j 471, 3, 90, 100
1185, 61 2112, 43
1320, 107 I 474, 12, 24, 82
1188, 29 2116, 14
P. M ich, la t., 72, 122 ' 477, 73
P. Oslo 1194, 6, 80, 121 2131, 15f., 34, 59, 87, 89, 93
481, 77
17, 69 1195, 96 2133, 88
482, 77
19, 95 484, 95 1201, 6, 47, 92 P. Par,
26a, 78 1204, 122 61, 81
486, 88, 89, 90, 96
494, 108 1205, 37, 108 68, col. III, r e c t o B , 36
W ileken, Ostr. 2 68, col. V I, v e r s o , 9, 37f.
529, 99 P. Oxy. 10
1372, 79, 122
584 r e e t o and v e r s o 77 1252, 17f. P. Petr. 2
P . Oxy. 1
637, 77 1253, 87 36, 76
33, 6
653, 118 1258, 96 P. Preis.
34, col. III, 43, 46, 51, 116
1266, 73 1, 105
35, 47, 72 P. Oxy. 4
706, 114 1268, 108 P. Princeton
36, 64
1271, 33 8, 72
37, 91 705, 27, 38, 58, 101
1305, 4 Princeton U niversity P. AM
38, 88 706, 118
39, 122 709, 100 P. Oxy. 12 8931, 65, 83
40, 16, 118 712, 114 pp. 1 4 8 -1 5 3 , 7 3f. PSI 1
44, 38f., 83 713, 76 pp. 160—162, 73 103, 64, 98
48, 108 720, 19f. 1406, 52, 54 107, 64
49, 108 721, 29f. 1407, 52 PSI 3
50, 108 726, 102 1408, 46, ,50, 116, 120 161, 78
54, 15 P. Oxy. 6 1411, 27 170, 78
60, 80 888, 110 1417, 19 199, 4
61, 118 889, 21, 46 1418, 19f. 235, 26
62 r e c t o 23 895, 44 1434, 12, 27, 60 PSI 4
66, 4 899, 52, 56, 61 1451, 74 281, 43, 103, 105, 117
71, 88, 97 916, 61 1456, 96 282, 111
72, 77 931, 99 1459, 78 293, 104, 107
75, 77 967, 99 1466, 110 PSI 5
78, 77 970, 77 1467, 109 446, 46, 84
97, 102 1468, 87 f. 447, 74f.
P. Oxy. 7
P. Oxy. 2 1469, 88 450, 104
1020, 55, 89, 104, 109
237, 9, 25, 46, 52f., 75, 86, 89, 91, 1470, 25 461, 64
1021, 4, 51
103f., 108, 113, 116 1504, 104 PSI 6
1022, 122
240, 84 1548, 68 683, 24
1023, 74
247, 77 1549, 78 685, 23
1032, 78, 8 7 - 9 0
248, 76 1558, 59 690, 72
P. Oxy. 8
250, 76 P. Oxy. 14 PSI 7
100, 51, 84, 94, 116
251, '7 0 1102, 107 1637, 13 797, 80
252, 70 1104, 26 1638, 108 807, 13, 88
253, 70 1111, col. I , 68 1642, 17 941, 95, 98
260, 96 1113, col. I , 78 1646, 13 PSI 8
273, 110 1654, 12, 42 942, 77
1115, 80
274, 77 1117, 88 1662, 62 PSI 9
281, 96 1666, 122 1026, 123
1119, 22, 57
1667, 96 1043, 71
 r
Indices 155
1 54 Indices

P . Teb. 2 P . Tor.
PSI 10 1 5761, 91 13, 97
1101, 47 569, 104
6223, 91, 110 W essely, Spec. Isag.
1103, 21 6944, 46 P . Thead.
15, 89, 103 8, no. 11, 29
1123, 35 6995, 72 P . W is.
1148, 101 18, 42, 87
6996, 72 23, 117
19, 42
P. R ein. 7181, 13, 79 24, 12, 118
54, 77
47, 87 7362, 12
55, 77
49, 68, 70 7378, 2 5 f., 75
51, 83 P. Strafib.
P. R oss-G eory. 2 5, 86, 103, 116
20, 87, 88, 92 22, 104, 109
27, 95 31, 41
P. R yl, 2 41, 89
74, 100 57, 87
75, 104, 114, 117 Stud. 2
76, 108 p. 28, 68, 70 Errata
77, 20, 88 Stud. 4
78, 25 p. 121, 52 P . 49 second paragraph last lir_. and p. 50 sixth line read: e d K tu m
84, 8, 59, 112 Stud. 20
t r a n s l a ti c i u m .
85, 80 35, 108
110, 31f. 60, 104
113, 87 75, 79
114, 42, 85, 88, 89, 114 283, 110
115, 111 Stud. 22
120, 110 55, 88
153, 56 63, 64
165, 109 64, 64
273, 93 t
66, 87
302, 88 86, 76
434, 100 P. Teb. 1
SB 5, 81
676, 64 P. Teb. 2
1010, 92 226, 78
3919, 28 239, n o
3924, 55f., 80, 83 286, 12, 56f.
4284, 71 287, 63, 83, 103
4416, 78 288, 59
4426, 111 289, 25, 63
4639, 115 302, 30, 87
5225, 56 303, 95
5232, 87 324, 78
5235, 85f., 88 326, n o
5236, 88 327, 21
5237, 88 328, 40
5238, 88 336, 64
5239, 88, 102 386, 104
5240, 88 397, n o
5241, 88 434, 95
5294, 108 489, 104
5343, 95, 97 492, 104
5678, 66 500, 61
5693, 104 562, 104