RODNEY AST

T HE H AND OF P.M ICH III 165 AND P.B AGNALL 3

aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 190 (2014) 231–233

© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

 231

TH E H A N D OF P.M ICH. III 165 AND P.BAGNA LL 3*

P.Mich. III 165 (= ChLA V 290 = CPL 203)1 is a copy of a bilingual (Greek-Latin) petition submitted by
Aurelia Diodora to Mevius Honoriatianus, prefect of Egypt, requesting the appointment of a guardian. The
papyrus comes from Oxyrhynchus and is dated 20 November 236. The first three lines and the prefect’s
decision in line 8 are in a proficient but not especially attractive Latin script. Lines 4–7, which are in Greek,
are probably in a different hand, that of NN, son of Isidorus (see line 6).2 The fact that the same hand wrote
both the dating formula and the prefect’s judgment has been taken as evidence that the papyrus is a copy of
an original petition that was kept in the prefect’s office.3 It is possible that Diodora received it for her own
records, or that it ended up in a local records office in Oxyrhynchus.
Recently, Jean-Jacques Aubert published a document from Oxyrhynchus that is also addressed in
Latin to the prefect of Egypt, whose name does not survive. The papyrus, P.Bagnall 3, contains an agnitio
bonorum possessionis submitted by Aurelius Dionysius, ward of Artemidorus son of Didymus, who seeks
possession of the property of his deceased mother.4 Comparison of the hand of P.Bagnall 3 with that of
P.Mich. III 165 reveals that the Latin part of each document was written by the same person, perhaps, I
would propose, an employee in the prefectural office.5
Here are representative photos of the hand in both papyri accompanied by corresponding transcriptions
and translations, as well as thumbnail images of parallel letterforms.

P.Mich. III 165.1–3

(b) (m) (n) (p) (ef)

Mevio Honoratiano praef(ecto) [Aeg(ypti) ab Aurelia Diodora rogo domine des mihi]
tutorem auctorem e lege Ị[ulia et Titia et ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) Aurelium Theonem dat(um)]
xii Kal(endas) · Decemb(ris) · dom(ino) · n(ostro) · V[ero Maximino Aug(usto) et Pupieno
Africano co(n)s(ulibus)]

* This article arose from work conducted in the spring 2013 on PapPal (www.pappal.info), a website devoted to the
paleography of the papyri. PapPal has been made possible by the support of the University of Heidelberg’s DFG-sponsored
Sonderforschungsbereich 933, “Materiale Textkulturen. Materialität und Präsenz des Geschriebenen in non-typographischen
Gesellschaften”.
1 The text was most recently reprinted in S. Daris, I papiri e gli ostraca latini d’Egitto, Aevum 74 (2000), 122.
2 The ed. pr. and CPL 203 distinguish four hands in the papyrus: one in lines 1–3, a second in lines 4–6, a third in line 7,
and a fourth in the final line. I agree with the editors of ChLA V 290 and Daris (loc. cit., p. 122), however, that only two hands
are at work in the entire document. Paleographically, the script in line 7 looks very similar to that in lines 4–6. The fact that
line 7 records Aurelius Theon’s consent to serve as guardian, which is expressed in the first person, does not necessarily mean
that it was penned by Theon himself. The individual who takes responsibility in line 6 for writing on Aurelia Diodora’s behalf
might have written Theon’s note of consent as well.
3 See the comments recorded in APIS, http://www.papyri.info/ddbdp/p.mich;3;165.
4 As Aubert states, parallel texts suggest that the Latin part was followed by a Greek translation, and there is a chance that
the bottom of the papyrus preserves traces of just such a translation.
5 References to reproductions can be found in the HGV under the respective editions.
232 R. Ast

“To Mevius Honoratianus, prefect [of Egypt, from Aurelia Diodora. I ask you, my lord, to appoint to
me] as guardian, in accordance with the [Julian and Titian] law [and by decree of the senate, Aurelius
Theon. Dated] on the XII of the Kalends of December, in the consulship of our lord Verus [Maximinus
Augustus and Pupienus Africanus].”

P.Bagnall 3 (fr. a)

(b) (m) (n) (p) (ef)

[ ca. 15 pr]ạef(ecto) · Aeg(ypti) · ab Aurelio Dionusio q(ui) · e(t) · Pausanio [·?] pupill(o) · [ ?]
[ ca. 15 ]ụsani q(ui) · e(t) · Artemidori [·] Didumi ab Oxurugch(itarum) · civit[a]t[e ? ]
[rogo, domine, des mihi] bonorum possessionem Aurelia<e> Aṣ[c]ḷạtario<u> q(uae) · [et · ]
Ạṭḥẹṇ[ ? ]
4 [ ca. 15 ]e q(ua/-ae) · e(t) · Sinthoni⸌de⸍ Antinoide matris · meae int(estatae) · def̣[unctae ?]
[ex ea parte edicti qua] legitimis herediḅ[us] ḍạṭụṛ[um] ṭe polliceris. Da[tum - - - ]
[ ca. 15 ]eta ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ c̣ ̣ọ[ ]̣ ̣ ̣ [̣ ca. 17 ] traces
[ ] ̣ [̣ ca. 16 ] traces [
--------------------
“To NN, prefect of Egypt, from Aurelius Dionysius, also known as Pausanias, ward of [NN -]usanus,
also known as Artemidorus son of Didymus, from the city of the Oxyrhynchites. [I ask, lord, that you
grant me] possession of the property of Aurelia As[k]latarion, also known as Athen- [daughter of NN
and NN] also known as Sinthonis of Antinoe, my mother who has died intestate, [according to the part
of the edict whereby] you promise to grant (it) to legitimate heirs. Given on (date).”

Identification of the hand in P.Bagnall 3 has implications for the date of the papyrus, offering additional
support to a tentative suggestion made by Hélène Cuvigny. The consular date is preserved in a very frag-
mentary state in line 6. Cuvigny suggested to the editor that the traces were consistent with the reading et
Ạṿịọḷạ c̣ ọ [(n)s(ulibus), which would give a date in the year 239, during the consulship of Manius Acilius
Aviola and the emperor Gordian III, and under the prefecture of Lucius Lucretius Annianus.6 This will
have been only a few years after Aurelia Diodora had submitted her petition to Mevius Honoratianus in
236, and apparently still during the tenure of the clerk tasked with producing a copy of the prefect’s deci-
sion in Diodora’s case.

6 See the commentary to P.Bagnall 3.5–6. The prefect’s name can be supplemented in the lacuna at the beginning of the
first line. How it was written is uncertain, perhaps L· Lucretio Anniano (16 letters).
 The Hand of P.Mich. III 165 and P.Bagnall 3 233

A Note on Abbreviations
The common hand is not the only item of interest in these documents. The writer also employs mid and
high dots in order to mark abbreviations. These dots are not to be confused with interpunction, which was
regularly used to indicate word division in Latin papyri until the early 2nd century, whether the words were
abbreviated or not.7 In the extant part of P.Mich. III 165 we find the dots after Kal, Decemb, dom, and n in
line 3, where they show word abbreviation. In P.Bagnall 3 the same writer consistently signals abbreviations
by means of dots, with one apparent exception. In line 4, the editor of the document prints a dot after matris
(see text above). This dot is not on the papyrus, however, as J. Sosin has confirmed after examining the
document in person.8 If it were there, we would have to regard it as a case of punctuation, but its removal
leaves us with absolutely no evidence for punctuation in the text. Therefore, the supplement [·?] in line 1
and [·] in line 2 are unlikely correct and should be disregarded, and in line 3 it is better to print [e(t) · ].
Similarly, there is no compelling reason to place a dot after Diodora in the supplement at the end of line 1
in P.Mich. III 165.

Rodney Ast, Universität Heidelberg, Institut für Papyrologie, Marstallstr. 6, 69117 Heidelberg
ast@uni-heidelberg.de

7 The best discussion of interpunction in Latin papyri remains R. D. Anderson, P. J. Parson and R. G. M. Nisbet, Elegiacs
by Gallus from Qasr Ibrîm, JRS 69 (1979), 131.
8 In an email dated 31.10.2013, Sosin writes, “there is no dot after matris. unambiguous”. It did not occur to me to ask
about this when I served as one of the editors of the volume in which the papyrus was first published.