Top SS 5

Trismegistos Online Publications
Special Series
-V-
A Survey of Petitions and Related

Documents from Ptolemaic Egypt
- Gert Baetens -
Department of Ancient History, KU Leuven
Leuven, 2020
Trismegistos Online Publications
Special Series
https://www.trismegistos.org/top
Edited by
W. Clarysse & M. Depauw
Often a PhD thesis for some reason cannot be published immediately. In the years
that follow, the authors do not find the time to revise the manuscript as they
wanted. This in turn causes problems because new literature appears or the
evidence of new sources needs to be incorporated. As a result, the manuscript often
remains unpublished and the valuable insights risk to be inaccessible and thus lost
for scholarship.
To prevent this, Trismegistos Online Publications have decided to open up a new

‘Special Series’, where valuable PhD theses or other scholarly manuscripts can be
published with an ISBN number.
Contributors can send in manuscripts in Word or PDF format to

mark.depauw@kuleuven.be. The editors will consult experts about the quality of
the manuscript without taking into account whether it is abreast of the most recent
scholarly literature or developments.
ISBN: 978-94-9060-410-3
Leuven, December 2020, revised version of a Phd thesis defended in 2017
Table of contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................................ V
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... VII
Introduction....................................................................................................................................1
Chapter I: ἐντεύξεις .....................................................................................................................19
Introduction .............................................................................................................................19
1. Royal ἐντεύξεις with petitioning function ......................................................................22
1.1. List ..................................................................................................................................22
1.2. Addressees ....................................................................................................................33
1.3. Form ...............................................................................................................................35
1.4. Content ..........................................................................................................................42
1.4.1. Dispute-related petitions ....................................................................................43
1.4.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ...........................................................................50
1.4.3. Fragmentary or incompletely published petitions of uncertain nature .....52
2. Non-royal ἐντεύξεις with petitioning function ..............................................................53
2.1. List ..................................................................................................................................53
2.2. Addressees ....................................................................................................................54
2.3. Form ...............................................................................................................................55
2.4. Content ..........................................................................................................................57
2.4.1. Dispute-related petitions ....................................................................................57
2.4.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ...........................................................................60
3. Non-royal ἐντεύξεις without petitioning function ........................................................60
3.1. List ..................................................................................................................................60
3.2. Addressees ....................................................................................................................63
3.3. Form ...............................................................................................................................63
3.4. Content ..........................................................................................................................65
Chapter II: ὑπομνήματα ..............................................................................................................67
Introduction .............................................................................................................................67
1. Early ὑπομνήματα with petitioning function .................................................................71
1.1. List ..................................................................................................................................71
1.2. Addressees ....................................................................................................................71
1.3. Form ...............................................................................................................................72
1.4. Content ..........................................................................................................................74
2. Early ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function ...........................................................76
2.1. List ..................................................................................................................................76
2.2. Addressees ....................................................................................................................79
2.3. Form ...............................................................................................................................80
2.4. Content ..........................................................................................................................83
3. Later ὑπομνήματα with petitioning function .................................................................84
3.1. List ..................................................................................................................................84
3.2. Addressees ................................................................................................................. 108
3.3. Form ............................................................................................................................ 110
3.4. Content ....................................................................................................................... 115
3.4.1. Dispute-related petitions ................................................................................. 115
3.4.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ........................................................................ 127
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.4.3. Fragmentary or incompletely published petitions of uncertain nature .. 128

4. Later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function ........................................................ 129
4.1. List ............................................................................................................................... 129
4.2. Addressees ................................................................................................................. 133
4.3. Form ............................................................................................................................ 133
4.4. Content ....................................................................................................................... 135
4.4.1. Declarations of property .................................................................................. 136
4.4.2. Offers for immovables and concessions auctioned by the state ................ 137
4.4.3. Notifications of crime without request ......................................................... 138
4.4.4. Other later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function............................... 139
Chapter III: other fragmentary Greek petitions ................................................................... 143
1. List ...................................................................................................................................... 143
2. Form ................................................................................................................................... 145
3. Content............................................................................................................................... 147
3.1. Dispute-related petitions ......................................................................................... 148
3.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ................................................................................ 150
3.3. Fragmentary petitions of uncertain nature ......................................................... 150
Chapter IV: mḳmḳ ...................................................................................................................... 151
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 151
1. mḳmḳ with petitioning function .................................................................................... 154
1.1. List ............................................................................................................................... 154
1.2. Addressees ................................................................................................................. 156
1.3. Form ............................................................................................................................ 157
1.4. Content ....................................................................................................................... 161
1.4.1. Dispute-related petitions ................................................................................. 161
1.4.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ........................................................................ 163
1.4.3. Fragmentary petitions of uncertain nature .................................................. 164
2. mḳmḳ without petitioning function............................................................................... 164
2.1. List ............................................................................................................................... 164
2.2. Addressees ................................................................................................................. 165
2.3. Form ............................................................................................................................ 165
2.4. Content ....................................................................................................................... 167
Chapter V: synthesis ................................................................................................................. 169
1. Form ................................................................................................................................... 169
1.1. Structure .................................................................................................................... 169
1.2. Prescript ..................................................................................................................... 172
1.3. Introduction of the body of the text ...................................................................... 173
1.4. Introduction of the request..................................................................................... 175
1.5. Rhetorical conclusion .............................................................................................. 178
1.6. Closing formula ......................................................................................................... 181
2. Content............................................................................................................................... 182
2.1. Dispute-related petitions ......................................................................................... 183
2.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ................................................................................ 194
2.3. Texts without petitioning function ....................................................................... 194
Chapter VI: capita selecta ........................................................................................................ 197
1. The relation between the ὑπόμνημα and the προσάγγελμα ..................................... 197
1.1. Early προσαγγέλματα versus later προσαγγέλματα ............................................ 197
1.2. Later προσαγγέλματα versus ὑπομνήματα ........................................................... 201
1.3. Previous discussions of the later προσαγγέλματα ............................................... 204
1.3.1. The later προσαγγέλματα according to HOMBERT & PRÉAUX ........................ 204
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.3.2. The later προσαγγέλματα in subsequent studies ......................................... 207

1.4. A reassessment of the later προσαγγέλματα ........................................................ 210
1.4.1. Documents explicitly designated as προσαγγέλματα in the sources ........ 210
1.4.2. Documents that are not designated as προσαγγέλματα in the sources but
have also been categorised as such by modern scholars ...................................... 215
1.4.3. The later προσαγγέλματα as ὑπομνήματα..................................................... 217
2. The personal delivery of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ to their addressee .... 219
2.1. Evidence ..................................................................................................................... 219
2.2. Motivation ................................................................................................................. 222
3. The submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the strategos and chrematistai..................... 224
3.1. Royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the strategos.......................................................... 225
3.2. Royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the chrematistai ................................................... 227
3.3. Royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the rulers themselves .......................................... 231
3.4. Context ....................................................................................................................... 233
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 237
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 241
Sources........................................................................................................................................ 261
Appendix 1: unpublished ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα ........................................................ 289
Appendix 2: newly published ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα ................................................. 297
Preface
This online publication presents a modified version of my doctoral dissertation I Am

Wronged: Petitions and Related Documents from Ptolemaic Egypt (332-30 BC), written in the
context of my doctoral project Dispute Resolution in Ptolemaic Egypt (2013-2017),
funded by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), and defended at KU Leuven in
2017, before a jury consisting of Willy Clarysse, Ruth Duttenhöfer, Katelijn
Vandorpe and Anne-Emmanuelle Veïsse.
Other projects have prevented me from reworking the dissertation into a more
complete monograph, but I did not want to further postpone the publication,
especially in view of other current research on similar subjects. Anne-Emmanuelle
Veïsse is presently revising her habilitation thesis on petitions from the 3rd century
BC Fayum for publication, Lavinia Ferretti is writing a doctoral dissertation on the
ὑπόμνημα in Graeco-Roman Egypt, and Javier Funes Jiménez is conducting doctoral
research on Ptolemaic petitions related to the priesthood. Every year, new editions
of petitions and other ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ are published.
New texts published after the submission of my dissertation (listed in appendix 2)

have not been incorporated anymore, but new addenda and corrigenda to sources
that were already included have been integrated, just like important new literature.
Further, some errors in the original dissertation have been corrected, some
arguments have been reconsidered, and some sections have been rephrased. Most
importantly, thanks to the kind support of Mark Depauw, Yanne Broux, Tom
Gheldof and Frédéric Pietowski, the database of petitions and other ἐντεύξεις,
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ underlying this study can now be accessed online
(https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions), allowing scholars to search and consult
my data in a more easy and versatile way. Individual records can also be reached by
clicking the TM text numbers throughout this study. I will do my best to keep this
database updated with new texts and new addenda and corrigenda.
I hope that this work, despite its limited scope, will give a further stimulus to
research on this fascinating material.
Acknowledgements
Writing is often said to be a solitary undertaking, but this work would surely
not have come about if it were not for the support and encouragement of
others. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to all these people.
My supervisor Mark Depauw has been so unfortunate as to have his office

about next to mine, which allowed me to harass him with questions large and
small and problems real and imagined without cessation. I cannot thank him
enough for his continuous and amicable support, listening ear and keen eye
for Demotic.
I am also most grateful to my other colleagues at the department of Ancient

History. Without Willy, I would still have held my Greek papyri upside down.
Without Tom, several digital disasters might have taken place. Without Yanne,
I could very well have starved to death during working hours. Thanks to my
officemates and other colleagues, life at the faculty has always been pleasant
and thought-provoking.
The well-known amicitia papyrologorum has manifested itself across country

borders as well. Several researchers have been so kind to share unpublished
work, images and suggestions. For this, I would like to thank Damien Agut-
Labordère, Carolin Arlt, Charikleia Armoni, Thomas Backhuys, Brigitte
Bakech, Marie-Pierre Chaufray, Frédéric Colin, Christina di Cerbo, Ruth
Duttenhöfer, Claudio Gallazzi, Cassandre Hartenstein, Thomas Kruse, Verena
Lepper, Edward Love, David Martinez, Roberto Mascellari, Brian McGing, Derin
McLeod, Giuditta Mirizio, Joachim Quack, Ilona Regulski, Kim Ryholt, Eleni
Skarsouli, Marcela Trapani, Günter Vittmann, Anne-Emmanuelle Veïsse,
Wolfgang Wegner and Andreas Winkler.
Lastly, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my family(-in-law) and

friends. I would never have been able to start on this enterprise if it were not
for my parents, who always encouraged me to pursue my interests, however
weird they might be. I would never have been able to finish this enterprise if it
were not for my wife Kris.
Introduction
βασιλεῖ Πτ[ο]λεμαίωι χαίρειν Ἡρακλείδης τῶν ἀπʼ Ἀλε[ξ]ά[νδρου νήσου,

τ]ῶν κατοικού[ντων ἐν Κροκοδίλω]ν πόλει τ[οῦ Ἀρσι]|νοίτου νομοῦ.
ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ Ψενοβάστιος ἣ κατοικεῖ Ψυάν, τ[οῦ προγεγρα]μμένου

νομοῦ. [τοῦ γ]ὰρ [ε] (ἔτους) ὡς αἱ πρόσοδ[οι], | Φαμενὼθ κα, ἐπορεύθην
εἰς Ψυάν, τοῦ αὐτοῦ νομοῦ, πρ[ὸ]ς ἰδίαν χ[ρείαν, πα]ραπορευομέν[ου δέ]
μου ̣ ̣ ̣α α ̣ ̣ιν ̣ ̣επ[ ̣ ]̣ ρ̣ ̣α | κύψασα Αἰγυπτία τις ἧι λέγεται εἶναι ὄνομα
Ψενοβάστι[ς] κατέχ[ειν κατ]ὰ τῶν ἱματίων μ[ου] οὖρον ὥστε καὶ ε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ |
καταρρυῆναι. ἀγανακτήσαντος δέ μου καὶ ἐπιτιμῶντος αὐτῆι,
ἐλ[οιδόρησε]· ἐμοῦ δὲ ἀντιλοιδοροῦντος αὐτῆι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ | Ψενοβάστις τῆι αὑτῆς
δεξιᾶι χειρὶ ἐπισπασαμένη τῆς ἀναβολῆ[ς τοῦ ἱμ]ατίου οὗ περιεβεβλήμην
ἔρηξε καὶ ἐπάρασσεν | ὥστε καὶ ἀπογυμνωθῆναί μου τὸ στῆθος, \καὶ
ἐνέπτυσεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπόν μο[υ]/ παρόντων τινῶν οὗς ἐγὼ
ἐπε[μαρτυρά]μην. ἃ δʼ ἐγκαλῶ ἔπραξεν ὑβρίζουσά με καὶ ἄρχουσα | εἴς με
χερῶν ἀδίκων. ἐπιτιμηθεῖσα δὲ ὑπό τινων τῶν παρόντων ἐφʼ οἷς αι̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣με, οὕτως καταλιποῦσά με ἀπηλλάγη ἔνδον, | ὅθεν τὸ οὖρον
κατέχεέν μου.
δέομαι οὖν σου, βασιλεῦ, εἴ σοι δοκεῖ, [μὴ περιιδεῖν με οὕ]τως ἀλόγως ὑπὸ
Αἰγυ[πτίας ὑβρισμέ]νον, Ἕλλην[α ὄν]|τα καὶ ξένον, ἀλλὰ προστάξαι
Διοφάνει τῶι στρατηγῶι, ἐπειδ[ὴ -ca.14-] ̣ ̣επιδ̣ει ̣ ̣ι̣ ὑπὸ̣ α[ὐτῆς (?) -ca.?- ]
| γράψαι Σωγένει τῶι ἐπιστάτηι ἀποστεῖλαι τὴν Ψενοβάστιν ἐφʼ [αὑτὸν
ὅπως διακρι]θῆι πρός [μ]ε περὶ το[ύτων καί, ἐὰν ἦι ἀληθῆ τὰ] | διὰ τῆς
ἐντεύξεως, τύχηι ζημίας ἧς ἂν ὁ στρατηγὸς συνκρ[ίνηι.
τούτου γὰρ γε]νομένου, διὰ σέ, βα[σιλεῦ, τεύξομαι τοῦ δι]|καίου.
[εὐτύχει.]
“To king Ptolemaios, greetings, Herakleides, of those from Alexandrou

Nesos, of those living in Krokodilopolis in the Arsinoite nome.
I am wronged by Psenobastis, who lives in Psya in the aforementioned

nome. For in year 5 according to the fiscal calendar, on the 21st of
Phamenoth, I went to Psya in the same nome for private business, and
while I was passing by [...], a certain Egyptian woman, said to be named
Psenobastis, leaned out and poured urine over my clothes so that
[...] dripping. When I got angry and reproached her, she railed at me.
When I, in my turn, railed at her [...] Psenobastis grabbed the end of the
cloak I had around me with her right hand, and tore and struck at it so
2 INTRODUCTION
that my chest was laid bare, and she spat in my face, while some people
whom I had called to witness were present. She committed the deeds of
which I accuse her, while she abused me and she laid hands on me first.
Reproached by some of the people who were present for [...] me, she left
me and went inside the house from which she had poured urine over me.
I beg you, king, if it seems good to you, not to overlook me, so

unreasonably abused by an Egyptian woman, myself being a Greek and a
stranger, but to order Diophanes the strategos, since [...], to write to
Sogenes the epistates to send Psenobastis to him so that she may be
judged together with me about these things and, if what is recounted in
this enteuxis is true, receive the punishment upon which the strategos
decides.
For if this occurs, I will obtain justice thanks to you, my king.
Farewell.”1
Many hundreds of petitions to the authorities of Graeco-Roman Egypt have been

preserved in the dry Egyptian climate, for the largest part found on papyrus but
more rarely also on potsherds, wooden tablets and stone. Among the preserved
papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt, petitions constitute one of the best-represented
types of texts. In most cases they relate to conflicts, such as the above-described
chamber pot argument between Herakleides and Psenobastis; more rarely, they
make requests that are not connected with a dispute. Petitions offer a privileged
insight into the daily problems and aspirations of life and the interaction between
private persons and the authorities in Graeco-Roman Egypt.
This study focuses on the petitions from Ptolemaic Egypt (332 - 30 BC). The conquest
by Alexander the Great and the ensuing Ptolemaic rule brought major changes to
Egypt and its governmental and social structure. One of these changes was the
development of a large-scale, advanced petitioning system throughout the region.
During the earlier Pharaonic period, people had also been able to present
complaints and requests to the authorities, but these early petitioning practices are
scantily documented. The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant and the Instruction of Rekhmire,
texts dating to the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom, respectively, stress the oral
aspect of petitioning.2 Other sources show, however, that complaints and requests
could also be addressed to the authorities through written documents. 3 For the Late
1
P. Enteux. 79 [TM 3354], Ro.
2
EYRE, The Use of Documents in Pharaonic Egypt, p. 63, 257.
3
For written petitioning during the Middle Kingdom, see LIPPERT, Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte,
p. 45-46. With regard to written petitioning during the New Kingdom, the preserved (model-)letters with
complaints and requests to the authorities and the long lists of charges constitute interesting material: cf.
BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’, p. 32-33. According to the Duties of the vizier (1111,14 - 1112,2), petitions had to be
presented in writing to the vizier. See also GRANDET, ‘The Ramesside State’, p. 859; LIPPERT, Einführung in die
altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte, p. 79-82.
INTRODUCTION 3
period, there is the famous Petition of Petiese, dating from the 6th century BC. This
text can hardly be identified as a genuine petition itself,4 but provides interesting
information on petitioning practices in this period.5
There is no evidence for Macedonian or Greek petitioning practices from the Pre-
Hellenistic period, but in the other Hellenistic kingdoms petitioning systems similar
to that of Ptolemaic Egypt were set up. Plutarch recounts an amusing story about
the petitions that were presented to Demetrios Poliorketes:
“One time, when he was thought to be riding out in a more amiable

mood and not to be ill-disposed to encounters, certain people gathered
around him and gave him written petitions. After he had taken all of
them and put them in his cloak, the men were pleased and escorted him.
But when he came to the bridge over the Axios, he opened his cloak and
threw them all into the river.”6
Flavius Josephus quotes a petition presented to Antiochos IV Epiphanes in his Jewish

Antiquities (XII 258-261). Five more examples can be found in the epigraphical
record: two petitions addressed to Antiochos III the Great (SEG XLI 1574), one to
Philippos V (SEG XIII 403), one to Antiochos V Eupator (SEG XLI 1556) and one to the
Attalid high priest Euthydemos (SEG XLVI 1519).7 Interestingly, all six petitions are
formatted as ὑπόμνημα, one of the most common petition formats encountered in
Ptolemaic Egypt as well. Moreover, certain expressions that appear in these
ὑπομνήματα remind strongly of expressions found in Ptolemaic petitions.8 All of
this suggests that the development of the Ptolemaic petitioning system was part of
a pan-Hellenistic innovation.
Status quaestionis
The petitions from Ptolemaic Egypt constitute an exceptional collection of texts. As

a consequence, they have attracted the attention of numerous scholars. The
4
For a recent assessment of the nature of this text, see JAY, ‘The Petition of Petiese Reconsidered’.
5
EYRE, The Use of Documents in Pharaonic Egypt, p. 258-259.
6
PLUTARCH, Life of Demetrios 42: δόξαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ποτε δημοτικώτερον ἐξελαύνειν, καὶ πρὸς ἔντευξιν ἔχειν οὐκ
ἀηδῶς, συνέδραμόν τινες ἐγγράφους ἀξιώσεις ἀναδιδόντες. δεξαμένου δὲ πάσας καὶ τῇ χλαμύδι συλλαβόντος
ἥσθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ παρηκολούθουν· ὡς δὲ ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ Ἀξιοῦ γέφυραν, ἀναπτύξας τὴν χλαμύδα
πάσας εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν ἐξέρριψε. For some context, see ADAMS, ‘Macedonian Kingship and the Right of Petition’;
STAVRIANOPOULOU, ‘Tοῦ δικαίου τυχεῖν’, p. 124.
7
Cf. MARTIN, ‘Τῷ δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος’, p. 664-666 (with mention of the petitions to Antiochos III, Antiochos IV
and Philippos V); VEÏSSE, unpublished habilitation thesis (adding the petition to Antiochos V and referring to yet
another inscription that may contain the fragmentary beginning of a petition addressed to Philippos V,
published in HATZOPOULOS, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. II, no. 18).
8
See chapter II, p. 69-70 for a more detailed discussion of these texts.
4 INTRODUCTION
following overview lists the most important studies related to Ptolemaic petitioning
practices.9
During the first half of the 20th century, fundamental studies were published on
three types of Greek texts traditionally associated with petitioning. In 1926, COLLOMP
wrote a book on the royal chancellery and the use of ἐντεύξεις in Ptolemaic Egypt.10
Next was the excellent article by BICKERMANN on the Ptolemaic ἔντευξις and
ὑπόμνημα, published in 1930.11 Third, there was the 1931 edition of ἐντεύξεις from
Magdola and Ghoran by GUÉRAUD, accompanied by an extensive commentary. 12
Fourth, HOMBERT and PRÉAUX published an article on the Ptolemaic προσάγγελμα in
1942.13 The list of Ptolemaic προσαγγέλματα by HOMBERT and PRÉAUX received an
important update by PARCA in 1985.14
In 1955, CAVASSINI greatly improved the accessibility of the Ptolemaic petition

corpus by publishing a list of 432 Ptolemaic petitions, with brief descriptions of
their structure and formulas.15 Her work was further elaborated by DI BITONTO, who
successively published an overview of the Ptolemaic petitions to the sovereign
(1967),16 of the Ptolemaic petitions to state officials (1968),17 and of some remaining
Ptolemaic petitions that had not been included in the previous two articles (1976).18
The lion’s share of the documents included in DI BITONTO’s work (473 texts) had
already been listed by CAVASSINI, but DI BITONTO’s surveys of the structure and
formulas of the texts were far more detailed than CAVASSINI’s, and most importantly
she was the first scholar to give an overview of the large variety of topics and
requests encountered in these documents.19
Petitions have always taken an important place in the study of the Ptolemaic
judicial system. In this context, the works by BERNEKER and WOLFF deserve special
mention. BERNEKER devoted a great deal of attention to the role of petitions in his
dissertation on the initiation of judicial proceedings in Ptolemaic Egypt, published
9
Petitions from later periods can offer interesting points of comparison for Ptolemaic petition research. KELLY
and MASCELLARI have recently examined petitioning practices in Roman Egypt. KELLY (Petitions, Litigation, and
Social Control in Roman Egypt) examines petitioning and litigation in Roman Egypt from a social point of view and
assesses to which extent and in which ways these mechanisms contributed to social control. MASCELLARI’s
unpublished doctoral dissertation (Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano) pays more attention to the formal
characteristics of Roman Egyptian petitions. For petitions from the Byzantine period, see FEISSEL & GASCOU, La
pétition à Byzance.
10
COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides.
11
BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’.
12
GUERAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ.
13
HOMBERT & PREAUX, ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’.
14
PARCA, ‘Prosangelmata ptolémaïques’.
15
CAVASSINI, ‘Exemplum vocis ἐντεύξεις’.
16
DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’.
17
DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’.
18
DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’.
19
About contemporary to DI BITONTO’s work but far less thorough is the monograph of WHITE on the formal
aspects of petitions: WHITE, The form and structure of the official petition.
INTRODUCTION 5
in 1930.20 WOLFF’s monograph on the Ptolemaic judiciary, of which a first edition was
published in 1962 and a second revised edition in 1970, radically reshaped our
knowledge of the Ptolemaic judicial system and the place of petitioning within that
system.21 Most importantly, he made a distinction between the judicial activities of
the courts and the judicial activities of the remaining officialdom, the so-called
Beamtenjustiz which was generally invoked by means of petitions.
In more recent years, several additional studies relating to Ptolemaic petitions have
appeared. In 1997, HENGSTL published a general article on the subject.22 JÖRDENS put
forth some interesting ideas regarding the Ptolemaic petitioning system in an
article from 2010.23 In 2012, STAVRIANOPOULOU wrote an article on the Ptolemaic
petitions to the sovereign, examined in the context of Hellenistic kingship. 24
BAUSCHATZ included a long chapter on Ptolemaic petitions in his 2013 book on the
Ptolemaic police.25 Issues of identity and identification in Ptolemaic petitions were
examined in a 2013 article by VEÏSSE.26 The present author recently published on the
often forgotten Demotic petitions from the Ptolemaic period (2014), 27 and on
persuasive self-presentation strategies in Ptolemaic petitions (2019).28 Similarities
between petitions and letters to gods are explored in studies by KOTSIFOU (2016) and
LOVE (forthcoming). 29 Last but not least, ANNE-EMMANUELLE VEÏSSE has recently
finished a habilitation thesis on the petitions from the 3rd century BC Fayum, which
she is currently revising for publication, and GIUDITTA MIRIZIO has recently finished a
doctoral dissertation on copying practices and the transmission of petitions and
other communications between Ptolemaic officials.
The lack of a recent overview of the Ptolemaic petition corpus forms a major
impediment to research in this field. The studies by DI BITONTO have never received
an update, although several hundreds of new petitions have been published since
her time and numerous corrections to earlier published petitions have been made.
The major objective of this study is to fill that gap.
20
BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht.
21
WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer.
22
HENGSTL, ‘Petita in Petitionen gräko-ägyptischer Papyri’.
23
JÖRDENS, ‘Ehebruch und Sonstiges’.
24
STAVRIANOPOULOU, ‘Tοῦ δικαίου τυχεῖν’.
25
BAUSCHATZ, Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, p. 160-217.
26
VEÏSSE, ‘L’expression de l’identité dans les pétitions d’époque ptolémaïque’.
27
BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’.
28
BAETENS, ‘Persuasive identities’.
29
KOTSIFOU, ‘Prayers and petitions for justice’; LOVE, ‘Beyond Earthly Justice’.
6 INTRODUCTION
Petitions and petition formats
In many civilisations, both past and present, people have (had) the opportunity to
submit written requests for the redress of wrongs and for other favours to the
authorities.30 In the present day, we designate all these documents as “petitions”,
but to a certain extent this generic concept of petitioning and accompanying
terminology is a modern construction: throughout history, there have been many
different types of petition-like documents, which were not always embedded in an
articulated concept of petitioning or designated with a general term. Still,
documents from many different societies can be found to serve a similar social
“petitioning function” and a generic concept and terminology of petitioning can
help to set these documents apart and stress how much they have in common.31
In Graeco-Roman Egypt, no general term for petitions or well-articulated concept of

petitioning appears to have existed.32 Nevertheless, a large and rather homogenous
group of documents from Graeco-Roman Egypt serves what we today would
intuitively call a “petitioning function” and the term and concept “petition” is
widely used in scientific literature related to these texts. Only a few scholars have
attempted to formulate a definition for this type of texts within the particular
context of Graeco-Roman Egypt. CAVASSINI defines petitions as “illa instrumenta (...)
quae privatus quidam, vel magistratus regi vel eius magistratibus misit ut ius ob
iniuriam et vim expecteret aut gratiam vel tutelam vel beneficium quibusdam
tempestatibus adipisceretur”.33 The definition by MASCELLARI is rather similar to
CAVASSINI’s: “tutti quei documenti ufficiali in cui una persona o un gruppo di persone
richiedeva un intervento delle autorità sia per aver subìto torti e danni da terzi, sia
col fine di ottenere aiuto, assistenza o facilitazioni in situazioni di difficoltà non
cagionate da dolo o colpa di alcuno”.34 BAUSCHATZ defines petitions in a more limited
sense as documents “written by a private citizen (or an official in his capacity as a
private citizen) to a government agent with (perceived) power to see to the righting
of certain alleged wrongs”. 35 All of these definitions combine specifications
concerning the content of petitions, the identity of the people who submit them
and the identity of the people who receive them:
- The word “petition” can be traced back to the Latin verb “peto”, meaning among
other things “to request”, “to beseech”. The request constitutes the heart of a
30
An interesting overview of the use of petitions in different historical contexts can be found in HEERMA VAN
VOSS, Petitions in Social History. China provides a fascinating example of a present-day petitioning system: see for
example GAO & LONG, ‘On the Petition System in China’.
31
HEERMA VAN VOSS, Petitions in Social History, p. 2.
32
Cf. MASCELLARI, Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano, p. 20, 804-806. The word βιβλίδιον, used from the 2nd century AD
onwards and closely related to Latin libellus, comes closest to such a general term.
33
CAVASSINI, ‘Exemplum vocis ἐντεύξεις’, p. 299.
34
MASCELLARI, Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano, p. 19.
35
BAUSCHATZ, Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, p. 164.
INTRODUCTION 7
petition, and therefore documents that do not focus on a request can not qualify as
petitions. Moreover, these requests have to be out of the ordinary in some way.
Ordinary business requests like P. Col. Zen. II 86 [TM 1799], for example, in which
two brick-makers ask to provide additional earth for their industry, have never
been interpreted as petitions. Similarly, declarations of property with brief requests
for registration have never been viewed as petitions. Many more examples like this
could be given. But what exactly constitutes the extraordinary nature of petition
requests? In BAUSCHATZ’s view, petitions aim for “the righting of certain alleged
wrongs”, so only dispute-related documents with requests can be regarded as
petitions. CAVASSINI and MASCELLARI suggest that petitions seek to obtain assistance
in difficult situations in general, not only in the context of disputes, but also in the
context of troubles that cannot be directly blamed on others. Most Ptolemaic
petitions are dispute-related, but some exceptions to this rule can hardly be
excluded from a petition corpus, and in this respect the definitions by CAVASSINI and
MASCELLARI seem more appropriate. A good example is SB VI 9302 [TM 6212], in
which a kleruch complains about a drought that ravages agricultural land in the
Thebaid and asks for permission to expound his ideas concerning this problem to
the sovereign. Such texts are included in CAVASSINI’s and MASCELLARI’s definitions,
but not in the one by BAUSCHATZ. Still, even the specifications by CAVASSINI and
MASCELLARI concerning the particular character of petition requests appear narrow,
because some requests seem out of the ordinary without being related to specific
disputes or difficulties. Documents through which temples ask the sovereign to
grant their sanctuary the right of asylia make a fine illustration: some of these
documents refer to the difficult circumstances in which the sanctuary finds itself,
but others do not; difficulties or not, all of them are regarded as petitions because of
the extraordinary character of their request. Lastly, some texts present requests
that seem rather ordinary as if they are not. Here P. Enteux. 22 [TM 3297] can serve
as an example: a widow named Nikaia daughter of Nikias addresses this document
to the king in order to have a certain Demetrios registered as her new kyrios.
Despite its trivial purpose, this text is styled with great care, just like other
messages addressed to the sovereign that contain more special requests. The
document concludes with a typical petition phrase that indicates that compliance to
the request would be regarded as an act of benevolence: τούτ[ων] γὰρ γενομένων,
ἔσομαι τετευχυῖα, βασιλεῦ, τῆς παρὰ σοῦ φιλανθρωπίας. All in all, it seems best to
categorise documents like this as petitions as well.
- Today the term “petition” is mainly associated with documents that are signed by
large groups of generally unrelated persons and that draw their credibility and
influence from their number of signees. In Graeco-Roman Egypt, however, petitions
were generally submitted by individuals or small groups of individuals that were
bound to each other by ties of family, occupation or patronage, and shared common
8 INTRODUCTION
interests as a consequence.36 The definitions by CAVASSINI and BAUSCHATZ explicitly

add that petitions could also be submitted by officials, but BAUSCHATZ rightly notes
that when submitting a petition, officials acted in their “capacity as a private
citizen”, so this observation does not seem essential.
- Concerning the addressees of petitions, the definition by BAUSCHATZ appears the

most narrow: according to him petitions are directed to “government agents”.
CAVASSINI’s definition does not only encompass petitions to state officials, but also
petitions to the sovereign. The definition by MASCELLARI is the least specific, stating
simply that petitions are submitted to the authorities (“autorità”). In fact, such
broad formulation seems to fit the Ptolemaic petition corpus best, as besides the
sovereign and various state officials, certain authorities that were not directly
connected with the state were also approached by petitioners: several Ptolemaic
petitions are addressed to land managers (all but one to Zenon), the leaders of the
Jewish politeuma of Herakleopolis, and priests. These documents have received
relatively little attention in petition research: the petitions to Zenon have regularly
been set apart as “private documents” or “aberrations”,37 the Jewish politeuma
petitions have only been published recently (in 2001), and the petitions to priests
have generally escaped attention because they are written in Demotic.
Nevertheless, they form an interesting complement to the petition corpus: several
of these documents are formulated in exactly the same way as petitions addressed
to state authorities; they show that secondary authorities like land managers,
politeuma leaders and priests could be approached with petitions in a very similar
way as the state authorities.38
On the basis of the discussions above, petitions in the particular context of Graeco-
Roman Egypt can be defined as “documents through which individuals or small
groups of interrelated individuals address requests that are out of the ordinary or
presented as such to the authorities”.
Three specific text formats, characterised by specific opening formulas

(henceforward “prescripts”), were commonly used to write petitions in Ptolemaic
Egypt: the Greek ἔντευξις, the Greek ὑπόμνημα and the often overlooked Demotic
36
Cf. KELLY, Petitions, Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt, p. 210-228. MASCELLARI also refers to groups of
petitioners in his definition.
37
See for example BAUSCHATZ, Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, p. 192; HENGSTL, ‘Petita in Petitionen gräko-
ägyptischer Papyri’, p. 276-277. CAVASSINI and DI BITONTO do not include petitions to Zenon in their surveys.
38
JÖRDENS (‘Ehebruch und Sonstiges’, p. 253-256) and WOLFF (Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 174-175,
178-179) have stressed the importance of factual authority and accessibility in the Ptolemaic petitioning system.
JÖRDENS criticises HENGSTL (‘Petita in Petitionen gräko-ägyptischer Papyri’) for putting too much stress on the
official competences of petition addressees and argues that the petitions addressed to Zenon and the leaders of
the Jewish politeuma suggest that factual authority and accessibility were more influential in the petitioners’
choice of addressee: “Als Regel wird man folglich festhalten dürfen, dass man zich mit seinem Anliegen
üblicherweise an denjenigen wandte, von dem man sich im gegebenen Zusammenhang aus welchen Gründen
auch immer aktuell den effektivsten Beistand versprach - vermutlich einfach, weil er da war, weil er mächtig
war und weil man ihm kannte (...) Die Adressaten scheinen dabei ebenso wie die Sachverhalte weitgehend
austauschbar gewesen zu sein” (p. 254).
INTRODUCTION 9
mḳmḳ.39 The petition cited at the beginning of this introduction, for example, is an
ἔντευξις, marked by the characteristic prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα. None of
these three formats was exclusively used for petitions, however: a considerable
portion (ca. 22 %) of the Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ do not
conform to the above-proposed definition of petitions, but served other purposes.
All of these documents are labelled according to their format (ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα
or mḳmḳ) in the sources, regardless of their function. It is the historian who
categorises them on the basis of their content and applies a distinction between
ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ with petitioning function and those without.
Many studies refer to the προσάγγελμα as a third major type of Greek Ptolemaic
petitions (besides the ἔντευξις and the ὑπόμνημα), because several 2nd century BC
petitions are labelled as such in the sources. In this study, it will be argued that the
nature of the Ptolemaic προσαγγέλματα has been largely misunderstood and that
the 2nd century BC petitions labelled as προσάγγελμα actually belong to the
ὑπομνήματα. This makes a separate category of προσάγγελμα petitions redundant.40
Finally, a couple of Ptolemaic letters (Greek: ἐπιστολαί; Demotic: šʿ.t and other
terms) appear to have served a petitioning function, but these letter petitions are
rare and form a marginal subset of the enormous and markedly multifunctional
Ptolemaic letter corpus. 41 Moreover, the petitions written in the more common
formats constitute a rather homogeneous group of texts, from which the letter
petitions seem to be set somewhat apart.42 All in all, the letter does not appear to
have been an important petition format in Ptolemaic Egypt. For these as well as
practical reasons, letter petitions are not discussed in this study.
39
In earlier times, the word mḳmḳ used to be transliterated as mkmk when written with the Demotic group
derived from the old writing for kȝ, but VITTMANN (‘Zum Gebrauch des kȝ-Zeichens im Demotischen’) showed
that this transliteration rests on a faulty understanding of the use of the kȝ group in Demotic. Throughout this
study, the group is consistently transliterated as ḳ and the transliteration mḳmḳ is maintained. See also QUACK,
‘Bemerkungen zur Struktur der demotischen Schrift’, p. 230-231. Evidence for other types of Demotic petitions
is scarce: cf. BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’, p. 43-50; DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 330-332. Recently, ARMONI and
THISSEN (in P. Tarich., p. 116-120) suggested that P. Tarich. 15 [TM 316294] might be a Demotic petition, but they
admit that the nature of this text is not entirely clear. For the ʿn-smy, see chapter VI, p. 200-201. In this study,
only mḳmḳ are taken into account.
40
This issue is examined in further detail in chapter VI, p. 197-218.
41
Good examples are P. Col. Zen. I 18 [TM 1738] and P. Petrie III 35 a [TM 7431], two letters requesting release
from prison. For some additional examples, see BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p.
179-181. BICKERMANN argues that these petition letters constitute a typically 3rd century BC phenomenon and that
they were subsequently forbidden. This hypothesis seems attractive, but should be evaluated on the basis of the
current evidence. For a survey of Demotic terms used to refer to letters, see DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 257-
260.
42
The procedure of conveying a letter also appears to have been radically different from the procedure of
conveying an ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα or mḳmḳ: see chapter VI, p. 219-223.
10 INTRODUCTION
Study outline
As already stated above, the major objective of this study is to give a state-of-the-art
overview of the Ptolemaic petition corpus. Consequently, the lion’s share of this
study consists of surveys of all petitions written in the three major Ptolemaic
petitioning formats: the ἔντευξις, the ὑπόμνημα and the mḳmḳ. None of these three
formats was exclusively used for petitioning, however, and in Ptolemaic Egypt no
distinction appears to have been made between ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ
with petitioning function and without. The long-standing scholarly practice of
isolating the petitions from the other documents in the same format seems
questionable, and for that reason this study also includes secondary surveys of all
ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ without petitioning function. These closely
related documents have never been collected and examined as a whole before, but
can help to clarify the nature of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ in general and
thus lead to a better understanding of the texts with petitioning function as well.
Chapters I-IV consist of surveys of all the material arranged according to type:
chapter I examines the Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις (further divided in royal ἐντεύξεις with
petitioning function, non-royal ἐντεύξεις with petitioning function and non-royal
ἐντεύξεις without petitioning function), chapter II the Ptolemaic ὑπομνήματα
(further divided in early ὑπομνήματα with petitioning function, early ὑπομνήματα
without petitioning function, later ὑπομνήματα with petitioning function and later
ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function), chapter III some fragmentary Greek
petitions that cannot be safely assigned to a specific petition type, and chapter IV
the Ptolemaic mḳmḳ (further divided in mḳmḳ with and without petitioning
function). For every individual group of texts, lists of all examples and compact
overviews of the addressees, form and content of the documents are provided. In
Chapter V, the information gathered in chapters I-IV is brought together in order to
develop a more synthetic view on the form and content of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα
and mḳmḳ. The most detailed information and specific text references can be found
in chapters I-IV; for a broader view on the corpus and additional information
regarding elements that appear in more than one type of texts, the reader can
consult chapter V. Chapter VI, finally, examines a couple of specific issues related to
Ptolemaic petitioning practices and petition formats: (1) the relation between the
ὑπόμνημα and the προσάγγελμα, (2) the personal delivery of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα
and mḳmḳ to their addressee, and (3) the submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the
strategos and chrematistai. Other subjects and issues are left unexplored.
A few methodological remarks are in place here:
- The distinction between petitions and texts that serve other purposes maintained
in this study regularly results in classification problems. First, some ἐντεύξεις,
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ are too fragmentary or incompletely published to
INTRODUCTION 11
adequately determine their purpose. In this study, such texts are tentatively
assigned to either the category of petitions or the category of texts without
petitioning function on the basis of the other examples of the same document type:
a fragmentary mḳmḳ of which only the prescript is preserved, for example, is
categorised as petition, because most mḳmḳ that are more fully preserved are
petitions. Second, even more fully preserved ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ
cannot always be unequivocally categorised as either petitions or other sorts of
texts. Above, petitions have been defined as “documents through which individuals
or small groups of interrelated individuals address requests that are out of the
ordinary or presented as such to the authorities”. But when exactly is a request “out
of the ordinary or presented as such”? Suggestions concerning the extraordinary
nature of petition requests have been made above, but there are no objective
criteria for distinguishing extraordinary requests from others. Moreover,
judgements concerning this regularly depend on the context and tone of a
document. The personal intuition and interpretative activity of the researcher can
hardly be eliminated. These classification issues constitute an important
disadvantage of distinguishing between petitions and other kinds of texts, but seem
unavoidable for any study of Ptolemaic petitions. At most, the problem is more
visible in this work, because ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ without petitioning
function are discussed as well.
- Ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ are often highly formulaic texts. This study does
not aim to offer an exhaustive overview of all formulaic elements encountered in
these documents (which could form the subject of a lengthy monograph on its own),
but focuses on their essential structural elements: most importantly the prescript,
the introduction of the body of the text, the introduction of the request, and the
closing. Petitions regularly insert rhetorical formulas between the request and the
closing in order to strengthen their appeals; in the petition cited at the beginning of
this introduction, for instance, the formula τούτου γὰρ γε]νομένου, διὰ σέ, βα[σιλεῦ,
τεύξομαι τοῦ δι]καίου is inserted. These “rhetorical conclusions” are also examined
in the petition surveys.43 Finally, some specific expressions and terms found in
petition requests are listed in the petition content surveys. For other petitioning
formulas and expressions, the studies by DI BITONTO, though outdated, are still
informative.
- In order to present the information in a more orderly way, a distinction between

dispute-related and non-dispute-related petitions is maintained in the petition
43
DI BITONTO (‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 50-51) gives a good overview of the various names which have been given to
this petition section. The rhetorical motifs found in these petition conclusions sometimes appear in the
descriptive sections, request introductions or requests themselves as well. Formulas of the last group are
discussed among the “general requests for support” in this study; the other two groups are not taken into
account, although further examinations would be interesting. Only the formulas that appear at the end of the
petition, between the request and the closing, are discussed in the sections about the “rhetorical conclusion”.
12 INTRODUCTION
content surveys in this study, but it has to be stressed that this distinction does not
reflect an actual legal divide.44
- The surveys of the content of the dispute-related petitions in this study are
divided in two parts: “topics” (what is the petition about?) and “requests” (what
does the petition ask?). When petitions relate to multiple topics and/or make
multiple requests, these are all identified individually. This approach radically
differs from that adopted by DI BITONTO: she assigns all dispute-related petitions to
one specific legal category (e.g. ὕβρις, βία, ...) and structures her discussion of the
content of the petitions along these lines.45 For several reasons, this methodology
seems questionable. First, there is no reason to assume that all petitions fit specific
legal categories, and at any rate the authors of petitions do not always appear to
have had the intention of focussing their petitions in such way.46 Second, the
approach forces DI BITONTO to disregard all elements of a petition that do not relate
to the assigned legal category. Third, it is hard to get a grip on the general types of
petition requests when reading the studies by DI BITONTO, because similar requests
(e.g. requests for summons) are not examined together but are divided over
different legal categories.
Corpus collection
This study is the first work to gather all Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and
mḳmḳ. How have all these texts been identified and collected?
Most ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ can be recognised by their prescripts, which
differ according to format:
- Ἐντεύξεις are introduced by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα (not to be
confused with the epistolary prescripts ὁ δεῖνα τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν or τῶι δεῖνι ὁ δεῖνα
χαίρειν).
- For the ὑπομνήματα, a distinction must be made between an early and later type.
The prescripts of the early ὑπομνήματα start with the word ὑπόμνημα, followed by
the identification of the addressee (in the dative) and the submitter (expressed by
παρά + genitive), in various order (most commonly ὑπόμνημα τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ
δεῖνος, but also ὑπόμνημα παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος τῶι δεῖνι). During the second half of the
44
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 5-6; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 133-134. DI BITONTO
makes a similar (albeit not exactly identical) distinction between “istanze” and “richieste”; for more
information on the use of these two Italian terms, see MASCELLARI, Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano, p. 23.
45
The legal categories used by DI BITONTO seem largely based on CAVASSINI’s earlier work and The law of Greco-
Roman Egypt in the light of the papyri by TAUBENSCHLAG.
46
Cf. KELLY, Petitions, Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt, p. 163-164.
INTRODUCTION 13
3rd century BC, this prescript was replaced by a shorter, standardised variant
without the word ὑπόμνημα: τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος.
- The prescripts of mḳmḳ start with wʿ (bȝk-)mḳmḳ, followed by the identification of

the addressee and submitter, in various order (wʿ (bȝk-)mḳmḳ addressee - submitter
or wʿ (bȝk-)mḳmḳ submitter - addressee).
Some documents are labelled as ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ in the sources
themselves. As explained above, early ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ refer to themselves as
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ in their prescript. Similar self-designations can also be
found in the body of certain texts, e.g. the formula ἐὰν ἦι ἀληθῆ τὰ διὰ τῆς
ἐντεύξεως in the petition cited at the beginning of this introduction. Further, some
texts are labelled as ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα or mḳmḳ in accompanying notes and
messages, e.g. forwarding letters with statements such as τοῦ δεδομένου
ὑπομνήματος παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος ἀντίγραφον ὑπόκειται. These explicit designations
confirm the above-described connection between the ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα and mḳmḳ
and specific prescripts, and allow the scholar to categorise several texts that have
lost their prescript as ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ as well.
- The following 78 ἐντεύξεις are explicitly designated as such in the sources: BGU X
1903 [TM 8299]; I. Prose 22 l. 19-42 [TM 6331]; I. Prose 37 l. 11-52 [TM 7237]; I. Prose 38 l. 2-28 [TM 7230]; I. Prose
39 l. 2-35 [TM 7231]; I. Prose 42 l. 9-44 [TM 6605]; I. Prose 43 l. 8-42 [TM 8805]; I. Prose 44 l. 8-37 [TM 7232]; P.
Amh. Gr. II 33 [TM 8669]; P. Athen. 5 [TM 77951]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59145 [TM 793]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59236 [TM 881];
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59622 [TM 1254]; P. Col. Zen. II 83 [TM 1796]; P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Enteux. 1 [TM 3279]; P.
Enteux. 4 [TM 3282]; P. Enteux. 12 [TM 3289]; P. Enteux. 22 [TM 3297]; P. Enteux. 25 [TM 3300]; P. Enteux. 32 [TM
3307]; P. Enteux. 34 [TM 3309]; P. Enteux. 35 [TM 3310]; P. Enteux. 41 [TM 3316]; P. Enteux. 53 [TM 3328]; P.
Enteux. 92 [TM 3380]; P. Enteux. 100 [TM 3372]; P. Enteux. 102 [TM 3370]; P. Enteux. 104 [TM 3368]; P. Enteux. 107
[TM 3365]; P. Erasm. I 1 [TM 5048]; P. Fay. 11 [TM 8084]; P. Fay. 12 [TM 8334]; P. Frankf. 7 Ro col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 13
[TM 5101]; P. Hibeh II 201 l. 1-10 [TM 5185]; P. Hibeh II 202 l. 1-6 [TM 5186]; P. Hibeh II 238 [TM 5198]; P. Köln Gr.
XII 479 l. 15-32 [TM 128733]; P. Lond. VII 1955 [TM 1518]; P. Lond. VII 2054 [TM 1616]; P. Lond. VII 2188 l. 22-115
[TM 251]; P. Münch. III 51 [TM 5250]; P. Petrie Kleon 50 [TM 44593]; P. Petrie Kleon 73 l. 4-5 [TM 7662]; P. Sorb. III
108 [TM 2603]; P. Tebt. I 43 [TM 3679]; P. Tebt. III 769 [TM 5362]; P. Tebt. III 770 [TM 5363]; P. Tebt. III 771 (1) [TM
7849]; P. Tebt. III 771 (2) [TM 341742]; P. Tebt. III 933 l. 10-24 [TM 7828]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor.
Choach. 8 b [TM 3638]; P. Yale I 57 [TM 5541]; PSI IV 383 l. 7-17 [TM 2067]; PSI VIII 976 [TM 2444]; SB VI 9302 [TM
6212]; SB VI 9556 col. i [TM 5787]; SB XXII 15558 [TM 8350]; UPZ I 10 [TM 3401]; UPZ I 11 [TM 3402]; UPZ I 14 l. 5-
34 [TM 3405]; UPZ I 19 [TM 3410]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411]; UPZ I 41 [TM 3432]; UPZ I 42 [TM 3433]; UPZ I 106 l. 9-22
[TM 3498]; UPZ I 107 l. 10-26 [TM 3499]; UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500].
- As discussed above, early ὑπομνήματα refer to themselves as ὑπόμνημα in their

prescript. One early ὑπόμνημα that exceptionally uses a different prescript without
this word, P. Petrie Kleon 66 [TM 381302], is explicitly designated as ὑπόμνημα
elsewhere in the text. Additionally, 79 ὑπομνήματα that use the later ὑπόμνημα
prescript or have not preserved their prescript are designated as ὑπόμνημα in the
body of the text or accompanying notes or messages:47 BGU III 1007 [TM 5552]; BGU III 1012
[TM 5553]; BGU VI 1244 [TM 4405]; BGU VI 1256 [TM 4543]; BGU VIII 1756 l. 8-18 [TM 4838]; BGU VIII 1757 l. 9-11
47
The Greek P. Köln VI 272 [TM 3202] is designated as mḳmḳ in its Demotic subscription, but this word was used
as direct Demotic equivalent of the Greek word ὑπόμνημα. Cf. BAETENS, ‘Some corrections to Ptolemaic petitions’,
p. 284-285.
14 INTRODUCTION
[TM 8295]; BGU VIII 1761 l. 5-16 [TM 4842]; BGU VIII 1772 l. 30-44 [TM 4853]; BGU VIII 1796 l. 7-12 [TM 4876]; BGU
VIII 1825 [TM 4904]; BGU VIII 1828 [TM 4907]; BGU VIII 1829 [TM 4908]; BGU VIII 1847 [TM 4926]; BGU VIII 1856
[TM 4935]; BGU VIII 1859 a [TM 4938]; BGU XVIII 2732 l. 10-24 [TM 69806]; Chrest. Wilck. 304 l. 7-16 [TM 41800];
P. Amh. Gr. II 35 [TM 8621]; P. Cairo Zen. I 59054 [TM 2296]; P. Col. Zen. II 96 [TM 1809]; P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM
5038]; P. Dion. 12 l. 6-21 [TM 3095]; P. Diosk. 6 l. 7-50 [TM 44722]; P. Duke inv. 360 [TM 58468]; P. Erasm. I 2 [TM
5049]; P. Erbstreit 16 l. 11-27 [TM 156]; P. Gen. III 126 l. 21-46 [TM 43084]; P. Hamb. IV 238 [TM 43304]; P. Heid. Gr.
IX 422 [TM 89277]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 431 [TM 89286]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 433 [TM 89288]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138]; P. Hels. I
12 [TM 5147]; P. Köln Gr. VI 261 Ro [TM 2486]; P. Köln Gr. VI 272 [TM 3202]; P. Köln VIII 341 l. 1-6 [TM 41533]; P.
Köln Gr. XI 455 [TM 112490]; P. Mich. XV 688 [TM 47503]; P. Mich. XVIII 778 [TM 8772]; P. Petrie III 32 a [TM
7422]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 69 [TM 5287]; P. Sijpesteijn 45 l. 6-32 [TM 7883]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 91 [TM 3918]; P. Tarich. 5 g col.
i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18 [TM 316246]; P. Tebt. I 30 l. 15-21 [TM 3666]; P. Tebt. I 31 l. 15-22 [TM 3667]; P. Tebt. I 41 [TM
78772]; P. Tebt. I 45 [TM 3681]; P. Tebt. I 46 [TM 3682]; P. Tebt. I 47 [TM 3683]; P. Tebt. I 49 [TM 3685]; P. Tebt. I 50
[TM 3686]; P. Tebt. I 53 [TM 3689]; P. Tebt. II 283 [TM 42986]; P. Tebt. III 703 [TM 5315]; P. Tebt. III 741 l. 14-25
[TM 5344]; P. Tebt. III 792 [TM 5378]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. iii l. 19 - col. iv l. 6 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 800 [TM 5383]; P.
Tebt. III 808 [TM 5391]; P. Tebt. IV 1095 [TM 3762]; P. Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763]; P. Tebt. IV 1097 [TM 3907]; P. Tebt.
Pad. 10 [TM 412064]; P. Tor. Choach. 5 a [TM 3594]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 bis l. 8-33 [TM 3562]; P. Tor. Choach. 12 col.
i l. 14 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 3563]; P. Yale IV 147 [TM 873587]; PSI XIII 1316 [TM 5582]; PSI XV 1512 [TM 44214]; SB X
10271 Ro [TM 5801]; SB XII 10770 [TM 4345]; SB XIV 11626 [TM 4255]; SB XVI 12524 [TM 14608]; SB XVIII 13735
[TM 2598]; SB XXII 15213 [TM 8511]; SB XXII 15559 [TM 8792]; UPZ II 218 col. i l. 29-36 [TM 3620]; UPZ II 220 col. ii
l. 1-11 [TM 3622].
- As discussed above, mḳmḳ refer to themselves as (bȝk-)mḳmḳ in their prescript. One

mḳmḳ that has lost its prescript (P. Carlsberg Dem. 486 ined. [TM 873618]) and
another one that exceptionally uses an epistolary prescript without the word mḳmḳ
(P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409]) are designated as such elsewhere in the text.
Only in rare cases, the designation of a certain document in the sources does not
match its prescript. The just-mentioned P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409], which uses an
epistolary prescript, can nevertheless be categorised as mḳmḳ rather than letter (as
will be argued later on: chapter IV, p. 157-158). In other instances of discrepancy,
the prescript seems a more straightforward criterion than the actual designation.
Three texts are designated as ὑπόμνημα or προσάγγελμα in the sources, though
they use the standard Greek epistolary prescript ὁ δεῖνα τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν and look
like letters in other respects as well: they can best be understood as letters and are
therefore excluded from the corpus.48 Three others are designated as ἐπιστολή or
ὑπόμνημα, although they use the ἔντευξις prescript and conform to the
characteristics of ἐντεύξεις in other respects as well: they are included in the corpus
as ἐντεύξεις.49 Finally, it will be argued further on (chapter VI, p. 197-218) that the
2nd century BC documents that use the ὑπόμνημα prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ
δεῖνος but are designated as προσάγγελμα can all be viewed as ὑπομνήματα.
48
P. Gurob 8 l. 2-5 [TM 5871] (designated as ὑπόμνημα in l. 1, if the abbreviation is read correctly); P. Petrie
Kleon 40 l. 6-8 [TM 7444] (designated as ὑπόμνημα in l. 2, 10); P. Tebt. III 936 l. 6-9 [TM 5461] (designated as
προσάγγελμα in l. 2).
49
P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 [TM 1083] (designated as ἐπιστολή in l. 13); PSI IV 423 [TM 2106] (designated as
ὑπόμνημα in l. 37); PSI V 488 l. 10-20 [TM 2119] (designated as ὑπόμνημα in l. 7). P. Cairo Zen. I 59075 l. 9-12 [TM
730], a message written by the Ammonite chief Toubias to Ptolemaios II, constitutes another example of a text
with the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα that is nevertheless designated as ἐπιστολή, but is left out of account
in this study. Except for its prescript, this text shows all characteristics of a letter. Possibly, Toubias based the
form of the prescript on that of Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις, but essentially this document seems to be a letter.
INTRODUCTION 15
Several texts that have not preserved their prescript and are not explicitly
designated as ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα or mḳmḳ in the sources either can still be
linked to one of these groups on the basis of other characteristics relating to their
form, content, material properties or archival context. Even a tiny fragment of a
petition to the king, for example, can be identified as belonging to an ἔντευξις,
because all known petitions to the king are formatted as ἐντεύξεις. Of course, there
are also fragmentary Greek documents that can be identified as petitions, but lack
the necessary indications to be assigned to a specific formal type: since they are
petitions, they are most probably either ἐντεύξεις or ὑπομνήματα, but more than
that cannot be safely assumed. These “fragmentary Greek petitions” are examined
separately in chapter III.
With regard to the Greek material, unpublished documents and documents that
have only been briefly described have been left out of account: 50 a list of all such
texts known by the author is added in appendix 1. Unpublished mḳmḳ known by the
author, however, have all been included, since examples of this type of texts are
much rarer.
The digital revolution of the past few decades has enabled the historian to conduct
studies of large groups of documents with greater ease than before. All ἐντεύξεις,
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ examined in this study have been collected in a database
integrated into Trismegistos, a digital platform that, among other functionalities,
provides stable identifiers and metadata for texts, people, places and archives from
the ancient world. Several fields in this database are automatically linked to the
Trismegistos texts, people, places and archives databases; further fields have been
added to save supplementary data concerning the texts in the corpus. The database
can be consulted online on Trismegistos (https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions),
and will receive regular updates.
Corpus representativity
In total, the corpus examined in this study consists of 1161 documents, of which 911
petitions and 250 texts without petitioning function. This corresponds to 375
ἐντεύξεις, 697 ὑπομνήματα, 44 fragmentary Greek petitions and 45 mḳmḳ. However
high this number may seem compared to other types of papyri, these 1161
documents only constitute a minuscule portion of all ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and
50
A couple of the Greek texts included in the corpus are not published yet, but will be published in the near
future: P. Texas inv. 1 [TM 873600] and P. Yale IV 138-151 [TM 79335, 873586-873599]. They could already be
included thanks to the courtesy of, respectively, DAVID MARTINEZ and RUTH DUTTENHÖFER.
16 INTRODUCTION
mḳmḳ written throughout the Ptolemaic era. This raises questions concerning the
representativity of the sample.51 A brief assessment of this issue seems in place.
There are no ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα or mḳmḳ from the very early Ptolemaic period:
the two earliest precisely dated examples are P. Enteux. 1 [TM 3279] and UPZ II 151
[TM 2975], two ἔντευξις petitions addressed to the king from 259 BC. Nevertheless,
the 3rd century BC is the best represented century of the corpus, closely followed by
the 2nd century BC.52 This predominance of 3rd century BC texts is largely due to the
archives of Zenon and the petitions from Magdola, which together constitute more
than one quarter of the material. Focussing only on the texts with petitioning
function, the 2nd century BC becomes the best represented century, followed by the
3rd century BC. The texts from the 1st century BC, for the largest part belonging to
the archive of the officials of the Herakleopolites, constitute the smallest group, in
which there are only a handful of texts without petitioning function. The latest
precisely dated text in the corpus (P. Würzb. 5 [TM 5533]) concerns a burglary that
took place in September 31 BC, the month during which the battle of Actium took
place. The general chronological distribution of Ptolemaic papyri looks very similar
to the distribution of the corpus used in this study.
CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS
3rd century (with petitioning function)
3rd century (without petitioning function)
2nd century (with petitioning function)
2nd century (without petitioning function)
1st century (with petitioning function)
1st century (without petitioning function)
CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALL PTOLEMAIC PAPYRI (BASED ON TRISMEGISTOS)
3rd century
2nd century
1st century
51
HENGSTL (‘Petita in Petitionen gräko-ägyptischer Papyri’, p. 269-270) and KELLY (Petitions, Litigation, and Social
Control in Roman Egypt, p. 22-24, 66) have argued that the Ptolemaic petition corpus is little representative.
52
The dates of texts that are not securely dated to a single century have been “weighed” in order to include
them in these calculations and charts: for this weighing method, see BROUX, Double Names and Elite Strategy in
Roman Egypt, p. 17-18; VAN BEEK & DEPAUW, ‘Quantifying imprecisely dated sources’.
INTRODUCTION 17
Geographically, the corpus is very unevenly spread.53 Almost two thirds of the total
material and more than three quarters of the subgroup of texts without petitioning
function originate from the Arsinoites. Other substantial numbers of texts come
from the Herakleopolites and Memphites. Documents from other Upper Egyptian
regions (in order of importance Peri Thebas, Oxyrhynchites, Pathyrites,
Apollonopolites, Omboi till Philai, Thinites, Lykopolites, Hermopolites, Panopolites,
Antaiopolites and Aphroditopolites) make up most of the remaining material. Texts
from the Delta region are very scarce: seven (all from the archive of the strategos
Apollonios) come from the Phthemphouth nome; six (five of which come from the
Zenon archive) possibly originate from Alexandria. The share of the Arsinoite and
Herakleopolite texts in the corpus is somewhat larger than would be expected on
the basis of the general geographical distribution of Ptolemaic papyri.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS
Arsinoites (with petitioning function)

Arsinoites (without petitioning function)
Herakleopolites (with petitioning function)
Herakleopolites (without petitioning function)
Memphites (with petitioning function)
Memphites (without petitioning function)
Other Upper Egypt (with petitioning function)
Other Upper Egypt (without petitioning function)
Other Lower Egypt (with petitioning function)
Other Lower Egypt (without petitioning function)
53
Geographical surveys in this study are always limited to the level of the nome. For the working list of Egyptian
nomes used in this context, see VERRETH, A survey of toponyms in Egypt in the Graeco-Roman period, p. 11-12.
Geographical provenance is a multifaceted issue: documents can be linked to places of origin, destination and
finding. Sometimes these three places coincide, but often they do not: cf. DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 92. In this
study, priority is given to the places of origin, since the provenance of the submitters of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα
and mḳmḳ seems most relevant in this context. If specific data concerning the place of origin of a certain text are
missing, its place of destination or finding is detailed.
18 INTRODUCTION
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALL PTOLEMAIC PAPYRI (BASED ON TRISMEGISTOS)
Arsinoites
Herakleopolites
Memphites
Other Upper Egypt
Other Lower Egypt
A considerable share of the Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ comes from
a handful of archives. The most important are those of Zenon (214 out of 1838 texts
of total archive; cf. TM Arch 256), the petitions from Magdola (97 out of 97 texts of
total archive; cf. TM Arch 80), the officials of the Herakleopolites (69 out of 155 texts
of total archive; cf. TM Arch 156) and the katochoi of the Serapeion (43 out of 127
texts of total archive; cf. TM Arch 119): 30 % of the texts with petitioning function
belong to one of these archives; 58 % of the texts without petitioning function come
from the Zenon archive. The bias caused by these large archives should always be
kept in mind. Still, ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ that belong to more modest
archives (328 texts) or have no apparent archival link (410 texts) are also well
represented in the corpus.
In conclusion, some periods and regions are far better represented in the corpus
than others. Three causes for this uneven distribution can be named: the
unfavourable climatological conditions in the Nile Delta, the large archives
distorting the view, and the accidental character of archaeological finds. This bias of
the sources is a general problem in the papyrological field, however, and does not
seem more pronounced for Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ than for
other sorts of papyri. Moreover, the preserved evidence from the less well
represented periods and regions generally does not appear different from that of
better represented periods and regions. The biggest weaknesses of the corpus are its
lack of texts from the early 3rd century BC and texts related to the central
administration in Alexandria: these documents may have been very different from
the rest of the material.
Chapter I: ἐντεύξεις
INTRODUCTION
In Ptolemaic Egypt, the term ἔντευξις designated a specific text format used to write
petitions and other formal communications (mostly with requests) to the
authorities, most importantly the sovereign.54 The word is derived from the Greek
verb ἐντυγχάνω, which means, among other things, “to meet with someone” or “to
appeal to someone”, either orally or through written documents. 55 Just like
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ, and in contrast to letters, ἐντεύξεις were, as a rule,
delivered to their addressees in person. 56 Ἐντεύξεις are introduced by the
distinctive prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα. 57 This prescript should not be
confused with the standard epistolary prescript ὁ δεῖνα τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν or the
alternative epistolary prescript τῶι δεῖνι ὁ δεῖνα (χαίρειν): 58 in the ἔντευξις
prescript, the verb χαίρειν separates the identification of the addressee (coming
first) from that of the submitter (second). The largest and best-known group of
ἐντεύξεις consists of petitions addressed to the sovereign, but during the 3rd century
BC the format was also used for addressing other authorities.59
More than two thirds of the ἐντεύξεις (269 out of 375 documents) are addressed to
the king or queen. The ἔντευξις clearly served as a standard format for
communications to the Ptolemaic rulers, although there is also one ὑπόμνημα
54
CAVASSINI (‘Exemplum vocis ἐντεύξεις’) uses ἔντευξις as a general term for Ptolemaic petitions, but in fact only
documents in the specific ἔντευξις format (with prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα) are referred to as ἐντεύξεις
in the Ptolemaic period. Only during the Roman period, ἔντευξις appears to have become a more general term
for petitions: see below, p. 21.
55
For a more detailed discussion of the verb ἐντυγχάνω, see COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la
diplomatique des Lagides, p. 51-56; LAQUEUR, Quaestiones epigraphicae et papyrologicae selectae, p. 15-19. The verb
could also be used to refer to appeals with ὑπομνήματα: cf. P. Vindob. G 56637 [TM 703255] l. 12-13 (ἐνέτυχον
αὐτῶι μεθ’ ὑπομνήματος) and UPZ I 20 [TM 3411] l. 36-37 (ὑπὲρ ὧν καὶ Σαραπίωνι τῶι ὑ[π]οδιοικητῆι ἐντυχοῦσαι
διʼ ὑπομνήματος).
56
For the submission procedure of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ, see chapter VI, p. 219-223.
57
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 155; COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la
diplomatique des Lagides, p. 62-64; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 11; GUÉRAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxiii;
STAVRIANOPOULOU, ‘Tοῦ δικαίου τυχεῖν’, p. 131-132; ZIEMANN, De epistularum graecarum formulis sollemnibus
quaestiones selectae, p. 259-262.
58
For a discussion of the epistolary prescript, see ZIEMANN, De epistularum graecarum formulis sollemnibus
quaestiones selectae, p. 253-258, 268-276.
59
It is unclear whether the ἐντεύξεις addressed to others than the sovereign were modelled after the royal
ἐντεύξεις or coexisted with the royal ἐντεύξεις from the start: BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken
Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 163.
20 CHAPTER I: ἐντεύξεις
addressed by a strategos to Ptolemaios VI and Kleopatra II (P. Berl. Zill. 1 e [TM

5563]), and three papyri refer to ἐπιστολαί written to the king (C. Ord. Ptol. 33 [TM
44154] l. 3; BGU III 1011 [TM 44037] col. ii l. 8).60 Not all royal ἐντεύξεις actually
reached the sovereign: though nominally addressed to the king or queen, many
royal ἐντεύξεις were in reality directly submitted to the strategos or the
chrematistai. Still, several ἐντεύξεις are known to have reached the Ptolemaic rulers
themselves.61 All royal ἐντεύξεις appear to be petitions; probably, the format was
also used for other sorts of communications, but no clear examples of that are
preserved.62
Almost one third of the preserved ἐντεύξεις (106 out of 375 documents) are
addressed to authorities other than the sovereign. The ἔντευξις has often been
reduced to the well-known royal ἔντευξις, and in this context several scholars have
overlooked the ἐντεύξεις addressed to other authorities, or categorised them as
different sorts of documents.63 In fact there is clear evidence that documents with
the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα that are not addressed to the sovereign were
also viewed as ἐντεύξεις.64 Six of them, both texts with and without petitioning
function, are explicitly labelled as ἐντεύξεις by their authors or by the individuals
who added summaries on their verso.65 Additionally, eight explicit references to
such non-royal ἐντεύξεις are found in other papyri.66 The link between royal and
60
Cf. also introduction, p. 14 note 49 about P. Cairo Zen. I 59075 [TM 730].
61
For the submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the strategos, chrematistai and sovereign himself, see chapter VI, p.
224-235. The strategos only received ἐντεύξεις addressed to the sovereign during the 3rd century BC; the latest
clear evidence for this practice dates from 217 BC. The chrematistai, on the other hand, clearly received royal
ἐντεύξεις during the 2nd and 1st centuries BC as well.
62
O. Hor Gr. E [TM 44762] (cf. below, p. 35, 51) might constitute an exception, but its exact nature is hard to
determine because it is a preliminary draft. PSI V 541 [TM 2163] (cf. below, p. 52) is also an unusual document.
63
E.g. DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 5; HENGSTL, ‘Petita in Petitionen gräko-ägyptischer Papyri’, p. 270; MITTEIS,
Grundzüge, p. 13; WILCKEN, ‘Bibliographie’, p. 224. Many non-royal ἐντεύξεις have been published as “letters”.
64
See most importantly BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 157-159, 163, 179-182. Cf.
also VEÏSSE, ‘L’expression de l’identité dans les pétitions d’époque ptolémaïque’, p. 82; ZIEMANN, De epistularum
graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae, p. 260; FITZLER, Steinbrüche und Bergwerke im ptolemäischen und
römischen Ägypten, p. 27-35. COLLOMP (Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 67-72, 133-136)
makes a complex and unnecessary distinction between ἐντεύξεις sensu stricto, letter - ἐντεύξεις, respectful
letters and letters sensu stricto. According to COLLOMP, all ἐντεύξεις in the strict sense are addressed to the
sovereign; documents that use the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα but that are addressed to others than the
sovereign are categorised by him as letter - ἐντεύξεις or respectful letters. DI BITONTO (‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 5)
defines ἐντεύξεις as “petizioni rivolte al sovrano”, but nevertheless refers to a couple of petitions addressed to
other authorities with the “prescritto tipico delle ἐντεύξεις” in her petition overviews (‘Frammenti di petizioni
del periodo tolemaico’, p. 115, 118; ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 62-63; ‘Le petizioni al re’,
p. 11 note 1). WILCKEN initially believed that ἐντεύξεις are exclusively addressed to the sovereign (see reference
in previous note), but later changed his mind (‘Papyrus-Urkunden’ [1924], p. 81).
65
P. Cairo Zen. II 59145 [TM 793] (addressed to Zenon); P. Cairo Zen. II 59236 [TM 881] (addressed to the
dioiketes); P. Cairo Zen. IV 59622 [TM 1254] (addressed to Zenon); P. Lond. VII 1955 [TM 1518] (addressed to the
oikonomos); P. Lond. VII 2054 [TM 1616] (addressed to Zenon); P. Petrie Kleon 50 [TM 44593] (addressed to the
architekton). P. Iand. Zen. 50 [TM 110102], probably addressed to Zenon, is also designated as ἔντευξις by its
author, but the prescript of this document is not preserved.
66
P. Cairo Zen. II 59218 [TM 863] mentions an ἔντευξις addressed to a certain Hipponikos (l. 3), P. Cairo Zen. III
59379 [TM 1022] an ἔντευξις to Zenon (l. 8), P. Lille Gr. I 8 [TM 3215] an ἔντευξις to a certain Nikanor (l. 5-6), P.
Hibeh I 57 [TM 8207] an ἔντευξις to an official whose name has not been fully preserved (l. 2), P. Petrie Kleon 87
[TM 7719] an ἔντευξις to a certain Archestratos (l. 4-5, l. 19-20), P. Ryl. IV 563 [TM 2419] an ἔντευξις to the
CHAPTER I: ἐντεύξεις 21
non-royal ἐντεύξεις is further confirmed by formal similarities, especially (but not

exclusively) their consistent use of the final salutation εὐτύχει,67 and the similar
personal delivery of these documents to their addressees. 68 Admittedly, two
documents that use the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα and are addressed to
others than the sovereign are designated as ὑπομνήματα in the sources, and one
other such document is called ἐπιστολή, but these isolated cases probably result
from a less formal, more colloquial use of the terms ὑπόμνημα and ἐπιστολή, and do
not constitute a firm argument against the general identification of the non-royal
documents that use the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα as ἐντεύξεις.69
The non-royal ἔντευξις appears to have been used in a more diverse way than the
royal ἔντευξις. Out of 106 examples, only 41 texts can be identified as petitions; the
remaining 65 documents seem to be messages to the authorities of various other
nature. All known non-royal ἐντεύξεις date from the 3rd century BC. From the end of
this century onwards, the ἔντευξις format only continued to be used for messages to
the sovereign. It is impossible to offer a precise date for the disappearance of the
non-royal ἔντευξις. With six exceptions, the preserved non-royal ἐντεύξεις come
from the archives of Zenon (263 - 229 BC) and of Kleon and Theodoros (260 - 236 BC).
The latest examples that can be dated with some precision are P. Petrie III 33 [TM
7428] (ca. 242 BC) and SB X 10260 [TM 4451] (ca. 238-237 BC). Presumably, the use of
the ἔντευξις format was limited to royal communications at this time in order to
avoid confusion with the ὑπόμνημα format, which was also used to address
authorities other than the sovereign.70
Since all ἐντεύξεις from the later 3rd century BC onwards are addressed to the
Ptolemaic rulers, it comes as no surprise that the format did not survive the Roman
conquest of the Ptolemaic kingdom. But although the specific ἔντευξις format
disappeared, the word ἔντευξις remained in use as a term for petitions during the
Roman period, especially for petitions addressed to the prefect.71
dioiketes (l. 3), PSI IV 419 [TM 2102] an ἔντευξις to the oikonomos (l. 4), and PSI V 531 [TM 2153] another
ἔντευξις to Zenon (l. 3-4).
67
For a comparison of the remaining formulas used in royal ἐντεύξεις, non-royal ἐντεύξεις and other texts, see
chapter V, p. 169-182.
68
69
P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 [TM 1083] (“ἐπιστολή”, probably addressed to Zenon); PSI IV 423 [TM 2106]
(“ὑπόμνημα”, probably addressed to Zenon); PSI V 488 l. 10-20 [TM 2119] (“ὑπόμνημα” addressed to the
dioiketes). Cf. introduction, p. 14.
70
See p. 69, 238-239.
71
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 181; MASCELLARI, Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano,
p. 20-21.
1. ROYAL ἐντεύξεις WITH PETITIONING FUNCTION
1.1. List
IDENTIFICATION TM NO. DATE NOME ADDRESSEE ARCHIVE COMMENTS
BGU VI 1241 7318 ca. 225 - Oxyrhynchites king

200 BC?
BGU X 1902 8298 ca. 275 - unclear king
225 BC
BGU X 1903 8299 ca. 275 - unclear king designated as
225 BC ἔντευξις
BGU XIV 2374 3994 88 - 81 Herakleopolites king land-registers of
BC Herakleopolites
I. Prose 19 5950 148 BC Omboi till king + inscription in
Philai queen stone
I. Prose 22 l. 6331 124 - 116 Omboi till king + inscription in
19-42 BC Philai queens stone; designated
as ἔντευξις
I. Prose 24 l. 6403 116 - 115 Omboi till queen + inscription in
39-50 BC Philai king stone
I. Prose 24 l. 6403 138 - 116 Omboi till king + inscription in
53-66 BC Philai queens stone
I. Prose 32 l. 7- 8160 95 BC Arsinoites king inscription in
47 stone
I. Prose 33 7228 93 BC Arsinoites king inscription in
stone; same
petition as I.
Prose 34
I. Prose 34 7229 93 BC Arsinoites king inscription in
stone; same
petition as I.
Prose 33
I. Prose 37 l. 7237 70 BC Arsinoites king + inscription in
11-52 queen stone; designated
I. Prose 38 l. 2- 7230 69 BC Arsinoites king + inscription in
28 queen stone; designated
I. Prose 39 l. 2- 7231 69 - 68 Arsinoites king inscription in
35 BC stone; designated
I. Prose 42 l. 9- 6605 57 BC Arsinoites queen inscription in
44 stone; same
petition as I.
Prose 43 l. 8-42
and I. Prose 44 l.
8-37; designated

42 stone; same
petition as I.
Prose 42 l. 9-44
and I. Prose 44 l.
8-37; designated
37 stone; same
petition as I.
Prose 42 l. 9-44
and I. Prose 43 l.
8-42; designated
O. Hor Gr. E 44762 170 - 164 Memphites kings + Horos of written on
BC queen Sebennytos ostrakon
P. Alex. p. 18 77928 3rd unclear king
no. 447 century
BC
P. Alex. p. 18 5017 224 - 218 Arsinoites king
no. 559 BC
P. Amh. Gr. II 8669 ca. 157 Arsinoites king + temple of designated as
33 BC queen Soknopaiou Nesos ἔντευξις
P. Amh. Gr. II 8671 ca. 157 Arsinoites king + temple of
34 c BC queen Soknopaiou Nesos
P. Athen. 5 77951 1st unclear king designated as
century and/or ἔντευξις
BC queen
P. Cairo 10361 282 150 - 149 Pathyrites king + temple of Pathyris same petition as
BC queen P. Cairo 10362;
composite
publication with
P. Cairo 10362
P. Cairo 10362 99286 150 - 149 Pathyrites king + temple of Pathyris same petition as
BC queen P. Cairo 10361;
composite
publication with
P. Cairo 10361
P. Cairo Zen. 994 ca. 244 Arsinoites king Zenon
III 59351 BC
P. Cairo Zen. 1099 242 - 229 Arsinoites king Zenon
III 59460 BC
P. Cairo Zen. 1250 263 - 229 Arsinoites king Zenon
IV 59618 BC
P. Cairo Zen. 1251 263 - 229 Memphites king Zenon
IV 59619 BC
P. Cairo Zen. 1252 248 - 239 Arsinoites king Zenon same petition as
IV 59620 BC P. Cairo Zen. IV
59621
P. Cairo Zen. 1253 248 - 239 Arsinoites king Zenon same petition as
IV 59621 BC P. Cairo Zen. IV
59620
P. Cairo Zen. V 1456 245 - 239 Arsinoites king Zenon
59832 BC
P. Col. Zen. II 1787 ca. 255 - Arsinoites king Zenon

72 250 BC
P. Col. Zen. II 1796 245 - 244 Arsinoites king Zenon designated as
P. Dion. 9 3092 ca. 139 Hermopolites king + Dionysios son of designated as
BC queens Kephalas ἔντευξις
P. Duke inv. 58466 240 - 200 Arsinoites king
698 BC
P. Eleph. 78214 246 - 221 Omboi till king
Wagner 2 BC? Philai
P. Enteux. 1 3279 259 BC Arsinoites king designated as
ἔντευξις
P. Enteux. 2 3280 218 BC Arsinoites king petitions from
Magdola
Magdola
P. Enteux. 4 3282 219 - 218 Arsinoites king epistates of designated as
BC Arsinoe ἔντευξις
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
P. Enteux. 12 3289 244 BC Arsinoites king designated as
ἔντευξις
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
P. Enteux. 19 3278 222 - 218 Arsinoites king petitions from
BC Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
P. Enteux. 22 3297 218 BC Arsinoites king petitions from designated as
Magdola ἔντευξις
Magdola

Magdola
P. Enteux. 25 3300 222 BC Arsinoites king epistates of designated as
Arsinoe ἔντευξις
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
BC Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola

BC Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
P. Enteux. 61 3336 ca. 246 - Herakleopolites king Kresilaos
240 BC
Magdola
BC Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
P. Enteux. 68 3343 222 - 221 Arsinoites king
BC
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola

P. Enteux. 80 3355 217 BC Arsinoites king epistates of
Arsinoe
Magdola
Magdola
Ro BC
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
/ 219 - Magdola
218 BC
BC Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
P. Enteux. 97 3375 222 BC Arsinoites king epistates of
Arsinoe
Magdola
Magdola
BC Arsinoe ἔντευξις
P. Enteux. 101 3371 ca. 219 - Arsinoites king epistates of
217 BC Arsinoe
P. Enteux. 102 3370 246 - 221 Arsinoites king designated as
BC ἔντευξις
BC
BC Arsinoe (?) ἔντευξις
P. Enteux. 105 3367 219 - 217 Arsinoites king epistates of

BC Arsinoe (?)
P. Enteux. 106 3366 ca. 244 - Arsinoites king
222 BC
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
Magdola
BC Magdola
Magdola
P. Erasm. I 1 5048 148 - 147 Arsinoites king + designated as
BC queen ἔντευξις
P. Fay. 11 8084 ca. 115 Arsinoites queen + designated as
BC king ἔντευξις
P. Fay. 12 8334 ca. 104 Arsinoites queen + designated as
BC king ἔντευξις
P. Frankf. 3 l. 5098 ca. 212 Oxyrhynchites king short excerpt in
10-12 BC? (?) collection of
various texts
P. Frankf. 7 Ro 5101 217 - 204 Arsinoites king designated as
col. i l. 1 - col. BC ἔντευξις
ii l. 13
P. Heid. Gr. 128479 156 BC? Herakleopolites king +
inv. 5017 Vo queen
P. Heid. Gr. VI 3073 220 BC Herakleopolites king
376
P. Heid. Gr. VI 3074 ca. 250 - unclear king
377 200 BC
P. Hibeh I 34 8186 243 BC Oxyrhynchites king
P. Hibeh II 201 5185 ca. 250 - Oxyrhynchites king designated as
l. 1-10 240 BC ἔντευξις
P. Hibeh II 202 5186 ca. 250 - Oxyrhynchites king designated as
l. 1-6 240 BC ἔντευξις
P. Hibeh II 235 5195 ca. 250 - Oxyrhynchites king
240 BC
P. Hibeh II 236 5196 ca. 250 - Oxyrhynchites king
240 BC
P. Hibeh II 237 5197 246 - 221 Oxyrhynchites king
BC (?)
P. Hibeh II 238 5198 246 - 221 Oxyrhynchites king designated as
BC (?) ἔντευξις
P. Hibeh II 239 5199 221 - 205 Herakleopolites king
BC?
P. Köln Gr. XII 128733 145 - 140 Herakleopolites king + designated as
479 l. 15-32 BC queen ἔντευξις
P. Köln Gr. XIII 219332 3rd unclear king

515 century
BC
P. Köln Gr. XIII 219333 ca. 225 - unclear king
516 175 BC
P. Lips. II 124 l. 78440 149 - 148 Arsinoites (?) king +
1-10 / 138 - queen
137 BC
P. Lips. II 124 l. 78440 ca. 139 - Arsinoites (?) king +
21-62 138 BC queen
P. Lond. VII 1601 263 - 229 Arsinoites king Zenon
2039 BC
P. Lond. VII 251 ca. 149 Pathyrites king + temple of Pathyris designated as
2188 l. 22-115 BC queen ἔντευξις
P. Meyer 1 5901 144 BC Arsinoites (?) king +
queen
P. Mich. XVIII 8775 ca. 205 - Arsinoites king Peteminis
780 b 204 BC? topogrammateus
P. Mich. Zen. 1970 246 - 229 Arsinoites king Zenon
71 BC
P. Münch. III 5250 135 - 134 Arsinoites king + designated as
51 BC queens ἔντευξις
P. Petrie III 22 7395 229 - 228 Arsinoites king Lamiske wife of
a BC Parmeniskos
P. Petrie III 27 7405 3rd Arsinoites king
Ro century
BC
P. Petrie Kleon 7662 ca. 260 - Arsinoites king Kleon and designated as
73 l. 4-5 249 BC Theodoros ἔντευξις
P. Sorb. I 13 3128 ca. 260 Oxyrhynchites king
BC
P. Sorb. III 103 121855 221 BC Arsinoites king Glaukos policeman
P. Sorb. III 105 2600 224 - 218 Arsinoites king Glaukos policeman
BC
BC
P. Sorb. III 108 2603 224 - 218 Arsinoites king Glaukos policeman designated as
BC
BC
P. Sorb. III 113 121860 ca. 220 Arsinoites king Glaukos policeman
BC
BC
BC
BC?
BC
BC?
BC
P. Strasb. Gr. II 3923 170 - 116 unclear king +
96 BC queen
P. Strasb. Gr. II 3925 2nd unclear king +
98 century queen
BC
P. Strasb. Gr. II 3926 170 - 164 Herakleopolites kings +
99 BC queen
P. Strasb. Gr. 3957 3rd unclear king
VII 644 century
BC
P. TCD Pap. Gr. 8832 232 BC Arsinoites king Aphthonetos
env. 86/87 Ro strategos
P. Tebt. I 43 3679 117 BC Arsinoites king + Menches designated as
queens komogrammateus ἔντευξις
P. Tebt. I 124 l. 3760 ca. 118 Arsinoites king + Menches
1-22 BC queens komogrammateus
P. Tebt. III 740 5343 ca. 113 Arsinoites queen +
Vo BC king
P. Tebt. III 769 5362 237 - 236 Arsinoites king designated as
/ 212 - ἔντευξις
211 BC
P. Tebt. III 770 5363 210 BC? Arsinoites king designated as
ἔντευξις
P. Tebt. III 771 7849 163 - 146 Arsinoites king + administration of same petition as
(1) BC queen Oxyrhyncha P. Tebt. III 771 (2);
designated as
ἔντευξις
P. Tebt. III 771 341742 163 - 146 Arsinoites king + administration of same petition as
(2) BC queen Oxyrhyncha P. Tebt. III 771 (1);
designated as
ἔντευξις
P. Tebt. III 933 7828 260 - 200 Arsinoites king designated as
l. 10-24 BC ἔντευξις
P. Tebt. III 951 7986 3rd Arsinoites king
century
BC
P. Texas inv. 1 873600 220 BC Arsinoites king
P. Tor. Choach. 3571 127 BC Peri Thebas king + Osoroeris son of same petition as
8a queen Horos P. Tor. Choach. 8
b; designated as
ἔντευξις
P. Tor. Choach. 3638 127 BC Peri Thebas king + Osoroeris son of same petition as
8b queen Horos P. Tor. Choach. 8
a; designated as
ἔντευξις
P. Vindob. 47288 223 BC Arsinoites king Glaukos policeman
Barbara inv. (?)
34
P. Vindob. G 699704 ca. 175 - Arsinoites king +

60501 125 BC? queen
P. Yale I 46 (1) 5538 246 - 221 unclear king
BC
P. Yale I 46 (2) 5538 246 - 221 unclear king
BC
P. Yale I 57 5541 93 - 70 Herakleopolites king designated as
BC and/or ἔντευξις
queen
P. Zen. Pestm. 1848 263 - 229 Arsinoites king Zenon
17 BC
PSI IV 383 l. 7- 2067 ca. 248 - Arsinoites king Zenon designated as
17 247 BC ἔντευξις
PSI IV 399 2082 259 - 229 Arsinoites king Zenon
BC
PSI V 541 2163 246 - 229 Arsinoites king Zenon
BC
PSI VIII 976 2444 248 BC Herakleopolites king Zenon designated as
ἔντευξις
PSI Congr. XXI 8151 116 - 107 Memphites queen +
6 BC king
PUG III 107 5600 236 BC Arsinoites king
PUG III 108 5601 ca. 229 - Arsinoites king
228 BC
200 BC
200 BC
SB I 4309 7132 ca. 229 - Arsinoites king
228 BC?
SB III 6134 7199 3rd Omboi till king
century Philai
BC
SB VI 9065 5721 50 - 30 Herakleopolites queen +
BC (?) king
SB VI 9302 6212 ca. 225 - Apollonopolites king designated as
SB VI 9556 col. 5787 246 - 245 Arsinoites king designated as
i BC ἔντευξις
SB VIII 9681 5792 175 - 145 Apollonopolites king +
BC queen
SB X 10224 5912 250 - 200 Lykopolites king
72
BC?
SB XVI 12687 4143 ca. 225 - Arsinoites king
200 BC
72
DARIS (‘Miscellanea licopolitana’, p. 171) dated this petition to the second half of the 3rd century BC, on
palaeographical grounds. CLARYSSE (‘Ptolemaic papyri from Lycopolis’, p. 102) argued for a later date, because the
cartonnage in which SB X 10224 [TM 5912] was found solely consisted of 2nd century BC papyri. But although the
general dating of the cartonnage by CLARYSSE might be correct, DARIS’ date for SB X 10224 [TM 5912] seems more
appropriate, since petition requests with the simple address βασιλεῦ (cf. l. 2) and petition conclusions that
include a direct address to the king (cf. l. 6) are both closely linked to the 3rd century BC ἔντευξις: see below, p.
36-37, 39-42.
SB XVI 13014 4199 2nd Arsinoites king

century
BC
SB XVIII 13119 2527 255 / unclear king
254 BC
SB XVIII 13254 2539 3rd Oxyrhynchites king
century
BC
SB XVIII 13256 2541 268 - 246 Arsinoites king
/ 230 -
221 BC
SB XVIII 13312 2548 222 - 218 Arsinoites king petitions from
BC Magdola
SB XX 14127 7878 ca. 200 - Arsinoites king +
150 BC queen
SB XX 15001 8123 217 BC Arsinoites king
SB XXII 15237 1850 244 - 242 Arsinoites king Zenon
BC
SB XXII 15558 8350 209 - 208 Arsinoites king designated as
/ 192 - ἔντευξις
191 BC
SB XXVI 16610 97138 ca. 275 - unclear king
225 BC
UPZ I 3 3394 ca. 164 Memphites king + katochoi of the same petition as
BC queen Serapeion UPZ I 4
UPZ I 6 3397 ca. 163 Memphites king + katochoi of the
BC queen Serapeion
UPZ I 9 3400 161 - 160 Memphites king + katochoi of the
BC queen Serapeion
UPZ I 10 3401 160 BC Memphites king + katochoi of the same petition as
queen Serapeion UPZ I 11;
designated as
ἔντευξις
queen Serapeion UPZ I 10;
designated as
ἔντευξις
UPZ I 14 l. 5-34 3405 158 BC Memphites king + katochoi of the designated as
queen Serapeion ἔντευξις
queen Serapeion UPZ I 19 and UPZ
I 20
I 20; designated as
ἔντευξις

I 19; designated as
ἔντευξις
UPZ I 41 3432 161 - 160 Memphites king + katochoi of the designated as
BC queen Serapeion ἔντευξις
UPZ I 42 3433 162 BC Memphites king + katochoi of the designated as
queen Serapeion ἔντευξις
UPZ I 106 l. 9- 3498 99 BC Memphites king + Chonouphis same petition as
22 queen UPZ I 107 l. 10-26
and UPZ I 108 l. 8-
20; designated as
ἔντευξις
26 queen UPZ I 106 l. 9-22
and UPZ I 108 l. 8-
20; designated as
ἔντευξις
20 queen UPZ I 106 l. 9-22
and UPZ I 107 l.
10-26; designated
UPZ I 108 l. 21- 3500 ca. 99 BC Memphites king Chonouphis
36
UPZ II 151 2975 259 BC Peri Thebas king
UPZ II 152 3553 3rd Peri Thebas king
century
BC
Total: 269 texts
1.2. Addressees
The royal ἐντεύξεις are addressed to various Ptolemaic rulers. During the 3rd
century BC, royal ἐντεύξεις are always addressed to the king alone, without his
spouse. The earliest examples are addressed to Ptolemaios II. More than half of all
texts come from the reigns of Ptolemaios III and IV. By contrast, not a single text
can be dated with certainty to the twenty-four-year-long reign of Ptolemaios V.73
Though several imprecisely or insecurely dated documents might possibly stem
from his rule, it is tempting to connect the lack of certain examples of ἐντεύξεις
addressed to this king with the political crisis during his reign.74 During the 2nd and
1st centuries BC, royal ἐντεύξεις are generally addressed to both the ruling king(s)
73
Cf. SCHWENDNER, Literary and non-literary papyri from the University of Michigan collection, p. 106 note 10.
74
For the political crisis during the reign of Ptolemaios V, see HÖLBL, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, p. 119-127,
135-140.
and queen(s). The preserved texts from this period are addressed to the following
rulers:75
- Ptolemaios VI together with Kleopatra II (175 - 170 and 163 - 145 BC): 20 texts;
- Ptolemaios VI together with Kleopatra II and Ptolemaios VIII (170 - 164 BC): 2 texts;
- Ptolemaios VIII together with Kleopatra II (164 - 163 BC and 145 - 141/140 BC): 1
text;
- Ptolemaios VIII together with Kleopatra II and Kleopatra III (141/140 - 132/131 BC
and 125/124 - 116 BC): 6 texts;
- Ptolemaios VIII together with Kleopatra III (132/131 - 125/124 BC): 2 texts;
- Kleopatra III together with Ptolemaios IX (116 - 107 BC): 4 texts;
- Kleopatra III together with Ptolemaios X (107 - 101 BC): 1 text;
- Ptolemaios X alone or together with Kleopatra Berenike III (101 - 88 BC):76 7 texts;
- Ptolemaios IX (88 - 80 BC): 1 text;
- Ptolemaios XII together with Kleopatra V (80 - 69/68 BC): 2 texts;
- Ptolemaios XII (69/68 - 58 BC and 55 - 51 BC): 1 text;
- Berenike IV (58 - 55 BC): 3 texts;
- Kleopatra VII (51 - 30 BC) together with one of her co-regents (Ptolemaios XIV or
Kaisarion): 1 text.
The evolution of the royal ἔντευξις addresses will be examined in further detail
below (p. 39-42).
75
Some ἐντεύξεις are left out of account here, because they are imprecisely or insecurely dated and cannot be
safely assigned to a particular reign. In general, I have followed the chronology proposed in the Chronologie
égyptienne by PESTMAN. The reign of Ptolemaios VIII together with Kleopatra II and III probably started in
141/140 BC rather than in 138/137 BC, however: cf. the chronological discussion of the marriage between
Ptolemy VIII and Kleopatra III in LENZO, ‘‘A Xoite Stela of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II’, p. 227-229.
76
Between the death of his mother Kleopatra III in 101 BC and his own death in 88 BC, Ptolemaios X ruled the
kingdom together with his wife Kleopatra Berenike III. Three ἐντεύξεις from 99 BC are addressed to both
Ptolemaios X and Kleopatra Berenike III; four ἐντεύξεις from the following years (one from 99 - 98 BC, one from
95 BC, and two from 93 BC) are only addressed to the king. Interestingly, PESTMAN (Chronologie égyptienne, p. 72
note c) has noted a similar phenomenon in Demotic dating formulas: “La reine ne figure que rarement dans la
datation des textes pendant les années 98/97 et 97/96 et jamais pendant les années 96/95 et 95/94. Est-ce par
hasard ou par suite de querelles conjugales?”.
1.3. Form
Structure77
With only a few exceptions, all royal ἐντεύξεις consist of five consecutive elements:
prescript, descriptive section, request, rhetorical conclusion and closing formula.
Only nine texts do not fully conform to this model. Seven documents do not add a
rhetorical conclusion after the request: I. Prose 38 l. 2-28 [TM 7230]; P. Cairo Zen. III
59460 [TM 1099]; P. Cairo Zen. V 59832 [TM 1456]; P. Enteux. 1 [TM 3279]; P. Lond.
VII 2039 [TM 1601]; P. Yale I 57 [TM 5541]; SB VI 9302 [TM 6212]. P. Cairo Zen. V
59832 [TM 1456] does not contain a closing formula either, but is a draft. O. Hor Gr. E
[TM 44762] does not contain a request, conclusion or closing, but appears to be a
very preliminary draft. Another draft, P. Tebt. III 769 [TM 5362] contains two
separate request sections instead of one.
Prescript
These texts are typically introduced by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα. In
the 3rd century BC documents, the king is simply addressed as βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι,
without further additions; in the 2nd and 1st century BC documents titles relating to
the royal cult of the addressed king(s) or queen(s) are added to the prescript, e.g.
βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι καὶ βασιλίσσηι Κλεοπάτραι τῆι ἀδελφῆι θεοῖς Φιλομήτορσι (P.
Erasm. I 1 [TM 5048]).78 These titles allow to identify the rulers to whom these
petitions are addressed. The evolution of the royal ἔντευξις addresses will be
examined in further detail below (p. 39-42).
Three texts from the archive of the katochoi of the Serapeion use different
prescripts. In UPZ I 3 [TM 3394] both χαίρειν and the names of the addressed king
and queen are omitted: βα(σιλεῦσι) Πτολεμαῖος Γλαυκίου. In UPZ I 18 [TM 3409], the
identification of the addressees is omitted altogether and the identification of the
submitters is expressed by παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος: παρὰ Ταυγῆστος καὶ Ταῦστος
δ[ιδ]υμ[ῶ]ν τῶν ἐν [τῶι] ἐν Μέμφει μεγάλῳ Σαραπιείωι. In UPZ I 6 [TM 3397], the
ἔντευξις prescript is confused with the ὑπόμνημα prescript, resulting in the hybrid
77
Cf. COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 72-76; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’;
GUERAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxii-xxiii.
78
Cf. COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 99; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 11-
12. One exceptional 3rd century BC ἔντευξις, PSI V 541 [TM 2163], addresses the king as [β]ασιλεῖ μ[εγ]άλωι
Πτολεμαίωι̣. One exceptional 2nd century BC ἔντευξις, O. Hor Gr. E [TM 44762], does not add cult titles.
formula τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος: βασιλεῖ Πτολε[μαίωι καὶ βασιλίσσηι
Κλεοπάτραι] τῆι ἀδε[λφ]ῆι θ[εοῖς] Φιλομήτορσι χα[ίρειν] παρὰ [Πτολ]εμαί[ου τοῦ
Γλ]αυκίου. Still, these texts are clearly royal ἐντεύξεις. The variant prescripts can
easily be accounted for: all three texts are drafts.79
Introduction of the body of the text80
122 texts are introduced by formulas with ἀδικέω, 19 by genitive absolute

constructions, 14 by date indications, and four by the conjunctions ἐπεί and ἐπειδή.
Various expressions are used at the start of the remaining texts.
In the dispute-related petitions, formulas of the type ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό (117 texts) and
the related participle constructions ἀδικούμενος / ἠδικημένος / ἀδικηθεὶς ὑπό (5
texts) are very common. In UPZ I 19 [TM 3410], this participle construction is
strengthened by an intensifier: ἐν πλείοσιν ἀδικούμεναι ὑπό. In P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092],
this participle construction is integrated in an even more elaborate expression: καθʼ
ὑ̣περβολ̣ὴ̣ν ἠδικημένο[ς] καὶ κινδυνεύ̣ων ἀντʼ ἐλευ̣θ̣έρου δοῦλος̣ γ̣ενέσθαι χ̣άριν τῶν̣
δ̣ιαπεπραγμέν̣ων εἴς με ὑπό Λυ̣σ̣ι̣κρά̣του τοῦ Χαρίνου.
Introduction of the request81
163 texts introduce requests with δέομαι, ten with ἀξιῶ, nine with combined
formulas of the type ἀξιῶ δεόμενος, and one (P. Cairo Zen. III 59460 [TM 1099]) with
καλῶς ἂν ποιήσαις. Several texts add the polite expression εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ or ἐάν (σοι)
φαίνηται to the request. The expression εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ (74 texts) appears 70 times
with δέομαι, 3 times with formulas of the type ἀξιῶ δεόμενος, and once with καλῶς
ἂν ποιήσαις. The expression ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται (13 texts) appears 8 times with
δέομαι and 5 times with ἀξιῶ.
Many texts directly address the sovereign in the request (148 texts). Initially, this
address took on the simple form βασιλεῦ, without further additions, but at about
the turn of the 3rd/2nd century BC this simple form of address gave way to more
elaborate and varied expressions, e.g. τῶν πάντων κοινῶν σωτήρων (UPZ I 20 [TM
79
WILCKEN, Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit I, p. 119-120, 123, 127, 187-189.
80
Cf. COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 81-92; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p.
12-15; GUERAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxiii-xxv; STAVRIANOPOULOU, ‘Tοῦ δικαίου τυχεῖν’, p. 132-133.
81
Cf. COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 92-115; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p.
15-19; GUERAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxv-xxvi.
3411]) or Ἥλιε βασιλεῦ (UPZ I 15 [TM 3406]; UPZ I 16 [TM 3407]).82 These titles used
in the requests are not linked to specific royal cults, but simply honorific.83 The
evolution of the royal ἔντευξις addresses will be examined in further detail below
(p. 39-42).
Rhetorical conclusion84
Four major categories can be discerned among the rhetorical conclusions added to
Ptolemaic petition requests: (1) rhetorical appeals to the addressees’ support, (2)
conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to pay their dues to the government,
(3) conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to tend to the cult of the gods and
rulers, and (4) conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to do justice. In the royal
ἔντευξις petitions, conclusions of the first three types can be found, as well as some
conclusions that do not fit any of these four categories. With only six exceptions, all
conclusions are introduced in one of the two following ways. First, they can form
separate sentences, introduced by the formula τούτου (γὰρ / δὲ) γενομένου or
τούτων (γὰρ / δὲ) γενομένων (87 texts). Second, they can be directly attached to the
request as final clauses, introduced by ἵνα / ὅπως (73 texts). In P. Enteux. 40 [TM
3315], the two introductions are combined: ἵνα, τού[του γενομέ]νου, διὰ σέ, βασιλεῦ,
τ[οῦ δικαίου τύχω].85 Six conclusions are introduced in other ways. The conclusions
of UPZ I 9 [TM 3400], UPZ I 15 [TM 3406], UPZ I 16 [TM 3407] and UPZ I 42, four texts
from the archive of the katochoi of the Serapeion, are expressed as a wish,
formulated in a separate sentence with a verb in the optative. In P. Cairo Zen. III
59351 [TM 994] and P. Mich. Zen. 71 [TM 1970], the formula καὶ ὦ διὰ σὲ τοῦ δικαίου
τετευχώς is clumsily attached to requests of the form δέομαι + infinitives.
Two formal features are specifically related to the conclusions of 3rd century BC
royal ἐντεύξεις. First, many royal ἐντεύξεις from this period directly address the
sovereign in the conclusion (110 texts). This address can take the simple form
βασιλεῦ or more elaborate forms such as βασιλεῦ, τὸν πάντων εὐεργέτην (P. Enteux.
46 [TM 3321]), clearly used interchangeably. These titles are not linked to specific
royal cults, but simply honorific.86 The evolution of the royal ἔντευξις addresses will
be examined in further detail below (p. 42-45). Second, several royal ἐντεύξεις from
82
For an overview of these later expressions, see COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des
Lagides, p. 99-102; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 16-17.
83
COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 96-102; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 16.
84
Cf. COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 115-123; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’,
p. 50-55.
85
Possibly, P. Enteux. 86 [TM 3386] uses a similar combined introduction, but this (fragmentary) example is less
certain.
86
COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 101-102; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p.
54.
this period add the formula ἐπὶ σὲ καταφυγών to the conclusion (39 texts), always in
combination with the above-discussed direct addresses to the sovereign.
1. Appeals to the addressees’ support
This type of conclusion appears in 130 texts:
- 75 texts contain appeals to justice (δίκαιον / δίκαια);87
- 19 texts contain appeals to the addressee’s help (βοήθεια);
- 19 texts contain appeals to the addressee’s philanthropy (φιλανθρωπία);
- 8 texts contain appeals to the addressee’s beneficence (εὐεργεσία);
- 5 texts contain appeals to the addressee’s assistance (ἀντίληψις);
- 1 text contains an appeal to the addressee’s mercy (ἔλεος);
- 1 text contains an appeal to the addressee’s considerateness (εὐγνώμονα);
- 1 text contains an appeal to the addressee’s deliverance (σωτηρία).
- 3 texts conclude with rather obvious appeals of the type τούτου γὰρ γενομένου,
ἔσομαι διὰ σέ, βασιλεῦ, τετευχὼς ὧν ἀξιῶ (“For if this occurs, I will have obtained
what I ask, thanks to you, my king”).
2. Conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to pay their dues to the government
This type of conclusion appears in one text, submitted by a group of royal farmers:
P. Amh. Gr. II 33 [TM 8669].
3. Conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to tend to the cult of the gods and
rulers
This type of conclusion appears in ten texts, submitted by priests and other persons
connected to temples.
4. Other rhetorical conclusions
Ten texts contain conclusions that do not fit any of the above four categories. Seven
of them come from the archive of the katochoi of the Serapeion: UPZ I 9 [TM 3400],
UPZ I 14 l. 5-34 [TM 3405], UPZ I 15 [TM 3406], UPZ I 16 [TM 3407], UPZ I 20 [TM
3411], UPZ I 41 [TM 3432] and UPZ I 42 [TM 3433]. They add various elaborate
conclusions to the request, mostly related to the rule and divine favour of the
addressed king and queen.88 The conclusion of PSI V 541 [TM 2163] also refers to the
87
Eight texts formulate this appeal to justice in a negative way, with the verb ἀδικέω.
88
For these conclusions, clearly of Egyptian origin, see COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des
Lagides, p. 120-122. Certain later ὑπόμνημα petitions (most of which also belong to the archive of the katochoi)
contain similar conclusions, related to the divine and royal favour of the addressee: see chapter II, p. 114.
rule of the king: ἵνα εὐσχομονῶν καὶ ἀνέγκλητός σοι ὢν τὸν βίον ἔχω, σοῦ τῆς
οἰκουμένης πάσης βασιλεύοντος (“so that I may lead my life behaving honourably
and irreproachably to you, while you rule over the entire world”). Finally, two texts
(I. Prose 24 l. 39-50 [TM 6403]; P. Tebt. I 124 l. 1-22 [TM 3760]) contain conclusions
that refer to the gratitude (χάρις) which the rulers will receive if they comply with
the petitioners’ request.
Closing formula89
Normally, royal ἐντεύξεις are closed by the final salutation εὐτύχει (145 texts). Four
texts, all from the 1st century BC, use the rare variant διευτύχει.90
Evolution of the addresses to the sovereign
At about the turn of the 3rd/2nd century BC, the addresses to the sovereign in royal
ἐντεύξεις underwent considerable changes. The documents from the 3rd century BC
are addressed to the king alone, and use the simple address βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι in
the prescript, the simple address βασιλεῦ in the request, and various expressions
ranging from βασιλεῦ to more elaborate constructions with honorific titles in the
conclusion (sometimes in combination with formulas of the type ἐπὶ σὲ
καταφυγών). The documents from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, on the other hand,
are generally addressed to both the ruling king(s) and queen(s), use specific cult
titles in the prescript, and honorific titles in the request; their conclusion no longer
contains a direct address to the rulers. The early style of addresses is still attested in
several texts from 218 BC, all belonging to the archive of the petitions from
Magdola. The later style had clearly become standard by 163 BC, as witnessed by
several texts from the archive of the katochoi of the Serapeion.91 It is hard to offer a
more precise chronological framework, however, since all ἐντεύξεις from the period
between 218 BC and 163 BC are insecurely dated or fragmentary. The formal
89
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 55.
90
STOOP (‘Two Copies of a Royal Petition’, p. 189, 193) also read δ̣ι̣ε̣[υτυ]χ̣ε̣ῖ̣τ̣ε̣ in his edition of P. Tebt. III 771 (2)
[TM 341742] (163 - 146 BC), but this reading is uncertain, and, judging from the date of this document, not very
plausible.
91
One petition draft from this archive, UPZ I 6 [TM 3397] (163 - 162 BC), still uses the simple address βασιλεῦ in
its request, but is clearly an exception: all other ἐντεύξεις from this archive use more elaborate addresses.
Moreover, this text is irregular in other respects as well: it uses a hybrid form of the ὑπόμνημα and ἔντευξις
prescript and does not contain a rhetorical conclusion.
characteristics of the documents from this period are summarised in the following
table:
IDENTIFICATION TM DATE PRESCRIPT ADDRESS REQUEST ADDRESS CONCLUSION
NO. ADDRESS
P. Enteux. 80 3355 217 BC βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι not preserved not preserved
SB XX 15001 8123 217 BC not preserved not preserved not preserved
P. Frankf. 7 Ro 5101 217 - 204 not preserved βασιλεῦ (...) [τὸν] not preserved
col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. BC κ[ο]ινὸν σωτῆρα
13 καὶ εὐεργέτην
P. Frankf. 3 l. 10- 5098 ca. 212 not preserved not preserved βασιλεῦ, τὸν
12 BC? ἐπιφανῆ
σωτῆρα θεῶν
νικηφόρων
P. Tebt. III 770 5363 210 BC? [βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι] βασιλεῦ none
SB XXII 15558 8350 209 - 208 [βασιλεῖ] Πτολεμαίωι [β]ασιλεῦ [βασιλεῦ, τὸν
/ 192 - πάντων]
191 BC σωτῆρα
P. Mich. XVIII 780 8775 ca. 205 - Βασιλε̣ῖ Π̣[τολεμαίωι -ca.?- ] not preserved not preserved
b 204 BC?
SB VIII 9681 5792 175 - 170 [βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι καὶ not preserved not preserved
BC βασιλίσσηι] Κ̣λεοπάτραι τῆι
ἀδελφῆι θεοῖς Φιλομή[τορσι]
O. Hor Gr. E 44762 170 - 164 βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι καὶ not preserved not preserved
BC βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι τῶι
ἀδελφῶι καὶ βασιλίσσηι
Κλεοπάτραι τῆι ἀδελφῆι
P. Strasb. Gr. II 99 3926 170 - 164 [βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι καὶ not preserved not preserved
BC βασιλεῖ Πτ]ολεμαίωι τῶι
ἀδελφῶι καὶ βασιλίσσηι
[Κλεοπάτραι τῆι ἀδελφῆι
θεοῖς Φ]ιλομήτορσι
The latest petitions with early style addresses date from 217 BC, ca. 212 BC (?), 210
BC (?) and 209 - 208 / 192 - 191 BC. Two of these dates are very uncertain, however:
P. Frankf. 3 l. 10-12 [TM 5095] is a tiny excerpt from a petition, preserved in a
collection of various documentary texts that were not necessarily composed at the
same time, and P. Tebt. III 770 [TM 5363] might possibly date from the reign of
Philadelphos or Euergetes rather than Philopator.92 The earliest petitions with later
style addresses date from 217 - 204 BC, 175 - 170 BC and 170 - 164 BC. The earliest
example, P. Frankf. 7 Ro col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 13 [TM 5101] (217 - 204 BC), should
probably be dated to the later years of Philopator, in view of the early style
addresses that are still used in the other ἐντεύξεις from his reign. Interestingly, the
document is addressed to Ptolemaios IV alone, and not to his wife Arsinoe III,
showing that the introduction of more elaborate addresses in the ἔντευξις requests
did not necessarily coincide with the change of addressing ἐντεύξεις to both the
king(s) and queen(s). In O. Hor Gr. E [TM 44762] (170-164 BC), the two kings and
queen are addressed together without specific cult titles, but this text is a draft. It is
92
Cf. GRENFELL & HUNT in P. Hibeh I, p. 359.
far from certain whether the different changes of the ἔντευξις addresses took place
at the same time or not, and whether or not there was a period of transition.
COLLOMP and DI BITONTO suggest that this formal evolution of the ἔντευξις addresses
might be linked to an administrative change that took place around the same time.93
Around 217 - 202 BC, the practice of submitting royal ἐντεύξεις to the strategos was
abandoned and the ὑπόμνημα became the standard format for petitions to the
strategos. 94 According to COLLOMP and DI BITONTO, the formal evolution of the
ἔντευξις addresses might possibly reflect this change of procedure: initially, the
generic addresses βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι and βασιλεῦ would have been used, because
most ἐντεύξεις were submitted to the strategos anyway and there was consequently
no need to identify the sovereign with more elaborate titles; from about the turn of
the 3rd/2nd century BC onwards, however, most ἐντεύξεις were submitted to the
rulers themselves and it would no longer have been appropriate to address them
with such simple and impersonal titles. The direct link between the royal ἔντευξις
procedure and address style proposed by COLLOMP and DI BITONTO seems problematic,
however. First, more elaborate addresses with honorific titles were already used in
the conclusions of some 3rd century BC ἐντεύξεις as well. Second, not all royal
ἐντεύξεις from the period before 217 BC were only nominally addressed to the king:
some of them were actually presented to the king as well, and in these documents
the same sort of addresses is used as in ἐντεύξεις submitted to the strategos.95 Third,
royal ἐντεύξεις could also be submitted to the chrematistai, both before and after
217 BC, and the examples from the later period use the same sort of addresses as
contemporaneous ἐντεύξεις that were actually submitted to the sovereign. Fourth,
the precise chronology of the evolution of both the ἔντευξις address style and
ἔντευξις submission procedure is not clear: it is not certain whether the different
changes of the ἔντευξις addresses coincided, nor whether the submission procedure
changed at the same time as these formal aspects. Altogether, it seems improbable
that the evolution of the ἔντευξις addresses was directly motivated by this change
of procedure.
DI BITONTO also suggests that the inclusion of the specific cult titles in the ἔντευξις
prescripts of the 2nd and 1st centuries BC might be connected to the evolution of the
royal cult.96 This idea does not make much sense either: the foundations for the
Ptolemaic ruler cult were already firmly laid in the 3rd century BC. Ptolemaios II and
Arsinoe II were already worshipped as deities (the θεοὶ Ἀδελφοί) during their (or
93
COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 102, 137-140, 200-201; DI BITONTO, ‘Le
petizioni al re’, p. 12, 16, 54.
94
For the submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the strategos, chrematistai and sovereign himself, see chapter VI, p.
224-235.
95
COLLOMP (Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 102, 138) already pointed to this problem.
96
DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 12.
Ptolemaios’) lifetime,97 just like Ptolemaios III and Berenike II (the θεοὶ Εὐεργέται)
and Ptolemaios IV and Arsinoe III (the θεοὶ Φιλοπάτορες). Still, they are never
identified by means of these cult titles in the ἔντευξις prescripts.
Interestingly, this novelty of addressing ἐντεύξεις to both the king(s) and queen(s)
is paralleled by dating formulas in other types of texts, which from the reign of
Ptolemaios VI onwards include references to both the king(s) and queen(s).98 This
change of the dating formulas was motivated by the growing importance of the
Ptolemaic queens at this time and their association to the throne.99 The earliest
examples of ἐντεύξεις addressed to both the king(s) and queen(s) also date from the
reign of Philometor, so in fact this practice might be explained in the same way. It is
not clear, however, how the other formal changes of the ἔντευξις addresses fit in
this scheme. The inclusion of the specific cult titles of the king(s) and queen(s) in
the 2nd and 1st century BC ἔντευξις prescripts might possibly be interpreted in a
similar way: from the reign of Ptolemaios VI onwards, kings and queens often ruled
together in various and rapidly changing constellations, encouraging more specific
references to the addressed rulers instead of the earlier, generic address “to king
Ptolemaios”. For the evolution of the addresses in the ἔντευξις requests and the
disappearance of the addresses from the ἔντευξις conclusions, this link is less
straightforward. Until the appearance of further evidence, the exact context of
these formal changes can only be guessed at.
1.4. Content100
Most royal ἐντεύξεις are dispute-related (226 out of 269 texts), but some are not (23
texts). 20 texts are so fragmentary or incompletely published that their context
cannot be adequately assessed.
97
It is not certain whether the cult of the θεοὶ Ἀδελφοί was instituted before or after the death of Arsinoe; the
date of death of Arsinoe II remains a hotly debated topic. Cf. most recently VAN OPPEN DE RUITER, ‘The Death of
Arsinoe II’.
98
Cf. PESTMAN, Chronologie égyptienne, p. 46-84.
99
Cf. BIELMAN-SANCHEZ & LENZO, Inventer le pouvoir féminin, passim (also discussing petitions addressed to the queen
in p. 52-56); HÖLBL, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, p. 76-77, 160, 172, 183-185, 187, 222, 255, 261, 263.
100
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 20-47.
1.4.1. Dispute-related petitions
Topics
The dispute-related petitions relate to various themes:
- Violence (30 texts): BGU X 1903 [TM 8299]; P. Enteux. 72 [TM 3347]; P. Enteux. 73 [TM 3348]; P. Enteux.
74 [TM 3349]; P. Enteux. 75 [TM 3350]; P. Enteux. 76 [TM 3351]; P. Enteux. 77 [TM 3352]; P. Enteux. 78 [TM 3353];
P. Enteux. 79 [TM 3354]; P. Enteux. 80 [TM 3355]; P. Enteux. 81 [TM 3356]; P. Enteux. 82 [TM 3357]; P. Enteux. 83
[TM 3358]; P. Enteux. 92 [TM 3380]; P. Enteux. 108 [TM 3364] (?); P. Enteux. 111 [TM 3361]; P. Fay. 12 [TM 8334]; P.
Lond. VII 2039 [TM 1601]; P. Lond. VII 2188 l. 22-115 [TM 251]; P. Petrie III 22 a [TM 7395]; P. Petrie III 27 Ro [TM
7405]; P. Sorb. III 112 [TM 121859]; P. TCD Pap. Gr. env. 86/87 Ro [TM 8832]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor.
Choach. 8 b [TM 3638]; SB XX 15001 [TM 8123]; UPZ I 6 [TM 3397]; UPZ I 15 [TM 3406]; UPZ I 16 [TM 3407]; UPZ II
151 [TM 2975].
- Misconduct or negligence by authorities (32 texts): I. Prose 22 l. 19-42 [TM 6331]; P. Amh. Gr.
II 33 [TM 8669]; P. Amh. Gr. II 34 c [TM 8671]; P. Enteux. 14 [TM 3291]; P. Enteux. 28 [TM 3303]; P. Enteux. 62 [TM
3337]; P. Enteux. 85 [TM 3387]; P. Enteux. 87 [TM 3385]; P. Enteux. 88 [TM 3384]; P. Erasm. I 1 [TM 5048]; P. Hibeh
I 34 [TM 8186]; P. Hibeh II 238 [TM 5198] (?); P. Lips. II 124 l. 1-10 [TM 78440]; P. Lips. II 124 l. 21-62 [TM 78440]; P.
Mich. Zen. 71 [TM 1970]; P. Tebt. III 769 [TM 5362]; PSI IV 383 l. 7-17 [TM 2067]; PSI VIII 976 [TM 2444]; SB XVIII
13256 [TM 2541]; SB XX 15001 [TM 8123]; UPZ I 6 [TM 3397]; UPZ I 9 [TM 3400]; UPZ I 15 [TM 3406]; UPZ I 16 [TM
3407]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411]; UPZ I 41 [TM 3432]; UPZ I 42 [TM 3433]; UPZ I 106 l. 9-22 [TM 3498]; UPZ I 107 l. 10-26
[TM 3499]; UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500]; UPZ I 108 l. 21-36 [TM 3500]; UPZ II 152 [TM 3553].
- Detention (7 texts): P. Cairo Zen. IV 59619 [TM 1251]; P. Col. Zen. II 83 [TM 1796]; P. Enteux. 84 Ro [TM
3214]; P. Sorb. III 112 [TM 121859]; P. Tebt. III 769 [TM 5362]; SB I 4309 [TM 7132]; SB XX 15001 [TM 8123].
- Theft (25 texts): P. Enteux. 28 [TM 3303]; P. Enteux. 30 [TM 3305]; P. Enteux. 31 [TM 3306]; P. Enteux. 39
[TM 3314] (?); P. Enteux. 83 [TM 3358]; P. Enteux. 94 [TM 3378] (?); P. Fay. 12 [TM 8334]; P. Hibeh I 34 [TM 8186];
P. Hibeh II 202 l. 1-6 [TM 5186]; P. Hibeh II 236 [TM 5196] (?); P. Sorb. III 106 [TM 2605]; P. Sorb. III 110 [TM 2602];
P. Strasb. Gr. II 99 [TM 3926] (?); P. Vindob. Barbara inv. 34 [TM 47288]; PUG III 107 [TM 5600]; PUG III 109 [TM
43237]; PUG III 110 [TM 43238] (?); SB XVIII 13254 [TM 2539]; UPZ I 6 [TM 3397]; UPZ I 10 [TM 3401]; UPZ I 11 [TM
3402]; UPZ I 18 [TM 3409]; UPZ I 19 [TM 3410]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411]; UPZ I 108 l. 21-36 [TM 3500].
- Damage to property (13 texts): P. Athen. 5 [TM 77951]; P. Enteux. 60 [TM 3335]; P. Enteux. 65 [TM
Enteux. 92 [TM 3380]; P. Enteux. 99 [TM 3373] (?); P. Münch. III 51 [TM 5250]; P. Sorb. III 108 [TM 2603]; P. Sorb.
III 128 [TM 121875]; SB XX 15001 [TM 8123].
- Use and ownership of immovable property (46 texts): P. Cairo 10361 [TM 282]; P. Cairo 10362
[TM 99286]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59620 [TM 1252]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59621 [TM 1253]; P. Duke inv. 698 [TM 58466]; P.
Eleph. Wagner 2 [TM 78214]; P. Enteux. 8 [TM 3285]; P. Enteux. 9 [TM 3286]; P. Enteux. 10 [TM 3287]; P. Enteux.
[TM 3341]; P. Enteux. 67 [TM 3342]; P. Enteux. 68 [TM 3343]; P. Enteux. 69 [TM 3344]; P. Enteux. 81 [TM 3356]; P.
Enteux. 86 [TM 3386]; P. Frankf. 7 Ro col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 13 [TM 5101]; P. Heid. Gr. inv. 5017 Vo [TM 128479]; P.
Lond. VII 2039 [TM 1601]; P. Lond. VII 2188 l. 22-115 [TM 251]; P. Sorb. I 13 [TM 3128]; P. Sorb. III 103 [TM 121855];
P. Sorb. III 104 [TM 121857]; P. Sorb. III 107 [TM 121858]; P. Sorb. III 109 [TM 2601]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 99 [TM 3926];
P. Tebt. III 771 (1) [TM 7849]; P. Tebt. III 771 (2) [TM 341742]; P. Tebt. III 933 l. 10-24 [TM 7828]; P. Texas inv. 1 [TM
873600]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 b [TM 3638]; P. Yale I 46 (1) [TM 5538]; SB VI 9556 col. i
[TM 5787]; SB VIII 9681 [TM 5792]; UPZ I 10 [TM 3401]; UPZ I 11 [TM 3402]; UPZ II 151 [TM 2975].
- Lease and rental agreements (18 texts): P. Enteux. 52 [TM 3327]; P. Enteux. 54 [TM 3329]; P.
Enteux. 89 [TM 3383]; P. Erasm. I 1 [TM 5048]; P. Hibeh II 235 [TM 5195]; P. Sorb. III 106 [TM 2605]; PSI IV 399 [TM
2082]; PUG III 108 [TM 5601]; SB X 10224 [TM 5912].
- Constructions built by the petitioner or the other party (9 texts): P. Enteux. 13 [TM 3290];
P. Enteux. 66 [TM 3341]; P. Enteux. 69 [TM 3344]; P. Enteux. 102 [TM 3370]; P. Lond. VII 2039 [TM 1601]; P. Sorb.
III 103 [TM 121855]; P. Sorb. III 104 [TM 121857]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 b [TM 3638].
- Sales (13 texts): P. Cairo Zen. III 59460 [TM 1099]; P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Enteux. 1 [TM 3279]; P. Enteux. 2
Enteux. 37 [TM 3312]; P. Enteux. 101 [TM 3371]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 376 [TM 3073]; P. Sorb. III 112 [TM 121859]; P. Yale
I 46 (1) [TM 5538].
- Loans and property given in safekeeping (21 texts): BGU XIV 2374 [TM 3994]; P. Cairo Zen. III
59351 [TM 994]; P. Col. Zen. II 83 [TM 1796]; P. Enteux. 29 [TM 3304]; P. Enteux. 32 [TM 3307]; P. Enteux. 33 [TM
3308]; P. Enteux. 38 [TM 3313]; P. Enteux. 40 [TM 3315] (?); P. Enteux. 41 [TM 3316]; P. Enteux. 42 [TM 3317]; P.
Enteux. 43 [TM 3318] (?); P. Enteux. 44 [TM 3319]; P. Enteux. 45 [TM 3320]; P. Enteux. 46 [TM 3321]; P. Enteux. 49
[TM 3324]; P. Enteux. 50 [TM 3325]; P. Enteux. 89 [TM 3383]; P. Enteux. 90 [TM 3382] (?); P. Fay. 11 [TM 8084]; P.
Sorb. III 111 [TM 2604]; SB XXII 15237 [TM 1850].
- Sureties and securities (8 texts): P. Enteux. 14 [TM 3291]; P. Enteux. 32 [TM 3307]; P. Enteux. 33 [TM
3308]; P. Enteux. 38 [TM 3313]; P. Enteux. 87 [TM 3385]; P. Heid. Gr. inv. 5017 Vo [TM 128479]; P. Sorb. III 111 [TM
2604]; SB XXII 15237 [TM 1850].
- Inheritances (11 texts): P. Eleph. Wagner 2 [TM 78214]; P. Enteux. 9 [TM 3286]; P. Enteux. 18 [TM 3295];
P. Enteux. 19 [TM 3278]; P. Enteux. 32 [TM 3307]; P. Enteux. 64 [TM 3339]; P. Enteux. 66 [TM 3341]; P. Hibeh II 237
[TM 5197] (?); UPZ I 18 [TM 3409]; UPZ I 19 [TM 3410]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411].
- Marriage contracts and dowries (4 texts): P. Enteux. 23 [TM 3298]; P. Sorb. III 109 [TM 2601]; SB
VI 9065 [TM 5721]; SB XVI 12687 [TM 4143].
- Work agreements (8 texts): P. Enteux. 4 [TM 3282]; P. Enteux. 47 [TM 3322]; P. Enteux. 48 [TM 3323]; P.
Enteux. 53 [TM 3328]; UPZ I 16 [TM 3407]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411]; UPZ I 41 [TM 3432]; UPZ I 42 [TM 3433].
- Taxes and rent due to the state (8 texts): P. Enteux. 87 [TM 3385]; P. Enteux. 88 [TM 3384]; P.
Enteux. 90 [TM 3382]; P. Lips. II 124 l. 1-10 [TM 78440]; P. Lips. II 124 l. 21-62 [TM 78440]; PSI IV 383 l. 7-17 [TM
2067]; PSI VIII 976 [TM 2444]; SB XXII 15558 [TM 8350].
- State-monopolised and other state-controlled industries and trades (2 texts): P.

Vindob. G 60501 [TM 699704]; SB XVIII 13256 [TM 2541].
- Contributions to and services by associations (2 texts): P. Enteux. 20 [TM 2981]; P. Enteux. 21

[TM TM 3296].
- Endowments for temples (1 text): I. Prose 19 [TM 5950].
- Forgeries (2 texts): P. Enteux. 49 [TM 3324]; P. Enteux. 50 [TM 3325].
- Other disputes that are not directly property-related and not attested in other
types of petitions: kidnapping (UPZ I 3 [TM 3394]; UPZ I 4 [TM 3495]); illegal use of advocates (P. Amh. Gr.
II 33 [TM 8669]); seduction (P. Enteux. 26 [TM 3301]); intimidation of witnesses (P. Enteux. 86 [TM 3386]); false
accusation of poisoning (P. Tebt. I 43 [TM 3679]).
- Other disputes that are directly property-related and not attested in other types of
petitions: disputes concerning the unwillingness of children to support their elderly father (P. Enteux. 25
[TM 3300]; P. Enteux. 26 [TM 3301]).
- Disputes of uncertain nature: BGU VI 1241 [TM 7318]; BGU X 1902 [TM 8298]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59618
[TM 1250]; P. Col. Zen. II 72 [TM 1787]; P. Enteux. 24 [TM 3299]; P. Enteux. 51 [TM 3326]; P. Enteux. 91 [TM 3381];
[TM 3374]; P. Enteux. 100 [TM 3372]; P. Enteux. 103 [TM 3369]; P. Enteux. 106 [TM 3366]; P. Enteux. 107 [TM
3365]; P. Enteux. 109 [TM 3363]; P. Enteux. 112 [TM 3360]; P. Hibeh II 201 l. 1-10 [TM 5185]; P. Hibeh II 239 [TM
5199]; P. Köln Gr. XII 479 l. 15-32 [TM 128733]; P. Köln Gr. XIII 515 [TM 219332]; P. Köln Gr. XIII 516 [TM 219333];
P. Sorb. III 105 [TM 2600]; P. Sorb. III 113 [TM 121860]; P. Sorb. III 114 [TM 121861]; P. Sorb. III 115 [TM 121862]; P.
Sorb. III 116 [TM 121863]; P. Sorb. III 119 [TM 121866]; P. Sorb. III 126 [TM 121873]; P. Sorb. III 127 [TM 121874]; P.
Strasb. Gr. II 98 [TM 3925]; P. Tebt. III 770 [TM 5363]; P. Tebt. III 951 [TM 7986]; P. Yale I 46 (2) [TM 5538]; P. Yale I
57 [TM 5541]; P. Zen. Pestm. 17 [TM 1848]; PSI Congr. XXI 6 [TM 8151]; SB XVIII 13119 [TM 2527]; SB XX 14127
[TM 7878]; SB XXVI 16610 [TM 97138].
Requests
The dispute-related petitions contain (1) requests to summon, send or bring

someone before an authority, (2) requests for examination, (3) requests for
judgement, (4) requests for punishment, (5) requests to make the other party hand
over property, (6) requests to make the other party abandon a claim or stop some
harassment, (7) requests to make the other party do justice, (8) requests concerning
seizure or blocking of property, (9) requests for release from detention, (10)
requests to initiate proceedings before the chrematistai, (11) general requests for
support, and (12) some other requests that do not fit any of the above categories
and are exclusively attested in royal ἐντεύξεις.
1. Requests to summon, send or bring someone before an authority
Many petitions ask to summon, send or bring the other party (90 texts), witnesses (3
texts: P. Enteux. 43 [TM 3318]; P. Enteux. 86 [TM 3386]; P. Petrie III 22 a [TM 7395]) or
a representative of the petitioner (1 text: UPZ I 6 [TM 3397]) before an authority.
This action is referred to with the following verbs:101
- 18 texts use ἀνακαλέομαι (“to summon”): P. Cairo Zen. III 59351 [TM 994]; P. Enteux. 26 [TM
Enteux. 44 [TM 3319]; P. Enteux. 49 [TM 3324]; P. Enteux. 51 [TM 3326]; P. Enteux. 62 [TM 3337]; P. Erasm. I 1 [TM
5048]; P. Fay. 11 [TM 8084]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 376 [TM 3073]; P. Hibeh II 238 [TM 5198]; P. Petrie III 22 a [TM 7395]; SB
VI 9556 col. i [TM 5787]; SB XXII 15237 [TM 1850]; UPZ I 10 [TM 3401].
- 2 texts use προσκαλέομαι (“to summon”): P. Fay. 12 [TM 8334]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411].
101
In P. Enteux. 78 [TM 3353], SB VI 9065 [TM 5721] and SB XX 15001 [TM 8123], the expressions are not fully
preserved.
- 6 texts use μεταπέμπομαι (“to summon”): P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Lond. VII 2188 l. 22-115 [TM
251]; P. Münch. III 51 [TM 5250]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 98 [TM 3925]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 b
[TM 3638].
- 60 texts use ἀποστέλλω (“to send”): BGU X 1903 [TM 8299]; P. Enteux. 2 [TM 3280]; P. Enteux. 3
Enteux. 86 [TM 3386]; P. Enteux. 89 [TM 3383]; P. Enteux. 91 [TM 3381]; P. Enteux. 106 [TM 3366]; P. Enteux. 112
[TM 3360]; P. Sorb. III 103 [TM 121855]; P. Sorb. III 104 [TM 121857]; P. Sorb. III 105 [TM 2600]; P. Sorb. III 106 [TM
2605]; P. Sorb. III 108 [TM 2603]; P. Sorb. III 109 [TM 2601]; P. Sorb. III 110 [TM 2602]; P. Sorb. III 111 [TM 2604]; P.
Sorb. III 112 [TM 121859]; P. Sorb. III 128 [TM 121875]; P. Yale I 46 (1) [TM 5538]; P. Yale I 46 (2) [TM 5538]. .
- 2 texts use ἐξαποστέλλω (“to send”): P. Yale I 57 [TM 5541]; UPZ I 11 [TM 3402].
- 2 texts use καθίστημι (“to bring”): UPZ I 6 [TM 3397]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411].
- 1 text uses ἀποκαθίστημι (“to bring”): P. Enteux. 24 [TM 3299].
- 1 text uses ἀνάγω (“to bring”): P. Enteux. 82 [TM 3357].
2. Requests for examination
36 petitions ask to examine the case or the parties involved:
- 25 texts use ἐπισκέπτομαι - ἐπίσκεψις (“to investigate” - “investigation”): P. Cairo Zen.

IV 59621 [TM 1253]; P. Eleph. Wagner 2 [TM 78214]; P. Enteux. 3 [TM 3281]; P. Enteux. 34 [TM 3309]; P. Enteux. 38
Enteux. 82 [TM 3357]; P. Enteux. 102 [TM 3370]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 376 [TM 3073]; P. Hibeh II 201 l. 1-10 [TM 5185]; P.
Lond. VII 2188 l. 22-115 [TM 251]; P. Petrie III 27 Ro [TM 7405]; P. Sorb. III 111 [TM 2604]; P. Sorb. III 112 [TM
121859]; P. Sorb. III 128 [TM 121875]; P. TCD Pap. Gr. env. 86/87 Ro [TM 8832]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P.
Tor. Choach. 8 b [TM 3638]; P. Vindob. Barbara inv. 34 [TM 47288]; PUG III 110 [TM 43238]; SB VI 9556 col. i [TM
5787]; UPZ II 151 [TM 2975].
- 2 texts use ἐξετάζω (“to examine”): P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Enteux. 49 [TM 3324].
- 7 texts use διακούω (“to hear”): P. Cairo Zen. IV 59620 [TM 1252]; P. Enteux. 26 [TM 3301]; P. Köln
Gr. XIII 515 [TM 219332]; P. Lond. VII 2039 [TM 1601]; P. Sorb. III 127 [TM 121874]; P. Tebt. III 769 [TM 5362]; P.
Zen. Pestm. 17 [TM 1848].
- 1 text uses ἐπέρχομαι (“to come”, typically used in requests for on-site
examinations): P. Enteux. 66 [TM 3341].
- 1 text uses ἐπερωτάω (“to question”): P. Petrie III 22 a [TM 7395].
3. Requests for judgement
22 petitions ask for a judgement, expressed by the closely related terms κρίνω -
κρίσις, διακρίνω and συνκρίνω:
- 9 texts use κρίνω - κρίσις: P. Cairo Zen. IV 59619 [TM 1251]; P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Enteux. 3 [TM
3281]; P. Enteux. 14 [TM 3291]; P. Enteux. 50 [TM 3325]; P. Enteux. 76 [TM 3351]; P. Fay. 11 [TM 8084]; P. Tor.
Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 b [TM 3638].
- 12 texts use διακρίνω: P. Enteux. 10 [TM 3287]; P. Enteux. 12 [TM 3289]; P. Enteux. 37 [TM 3312]; P.
3335]; P. Enteux. 72 [TM 3347]; P. Enteux. 79 [TM 3354]; P. Enteux. 89 [TM 3383]; P. Enteux. 100 [TM 3372].
- 1 text uses συνκρίνω: P. Fay. 12 [TM 8334].
4. Requests for punishment
24 petitions ask to punish the accused. This punishment can be referred to in

various ways:
- 1 text uses διάληψις (“decision”): P. Fay. 12 [TM 8334].
- 7 texts use διαγιγνώσκω περί (“to take a decision about [accused or offense]”): P.
3358]; P. Sorb. III 128 [TM 121875]; SB VI 9556 col. i [TM 5787].
- 1 text uses καταγιγνώσκω (“to condemn”): P. Sorb. III 112 [TM 121859].
- 1 text uses χράομαι (“to deal with [accused]”): P. Enteux. 26 [TM 3301].
- 3 texts use τιμωρία (“punishment”): P. Enteux. 50 [TM 3325]; P. Enteux. 77 [TM 3352]; P. Col. Zen. II
83 [TM 1796].
- 2 texts use ζημία (“punishment”): P. Enteux. 79 [TM 3354]; P. Sorb. III 128 [TM 121875].
- 1 text uses ἐπιστροφή (“correction”): P. Sorb. III 103 [TM 121855].
- 8 texts ask to exact (πράσσω) a fine: P. Enteux. 72 [TM 3347]; P. Enteux. 74 [TM 3349]; P. Fay. 12 [TM
8334]; P. Hibeh I 34 [TM 8186]; P. Mich. Zen. 71 [TM 1970]; P. Sorb. III 112 [TM 121859]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM
3571]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 b [TM 3638].
- 1 text asks to let the accused receive what is fitting (τυγχάνω ὧν προσήκει): P. Yale I
57 [TM 5541].
- 1 text asks to let the accused receive what they deserve (τυγχάνω τῆς ἀξίας (?)): P.
Sorb. III 104 [TM 121857].
5. Requests to make the other party hand over property
59 petitions ask to make the other party hand over money or movables: P. Cairo Zen. III
3378]; P. Enteux. 101 [TM 3371]; P. Enteux. 106 [TM 3366]; P. Fay. 11 [TM 8084]; P. Fay. 12 [TM 8334]; P. Heid. Gr.
VI 376 [TM 3073]; P. Hibeh II 202 l. 1-6 [TM 5186]; P. Hibeh II 239 [TM 5199]; P. Köln Gr. XIII 515 [TM 219332]; P.
Sorb. III 106 [TM 2605]; P. Sorb. III 108 [TM 2603]; P. Sorb. III 110 [TM 2602]; P. Sorb. III 111 [TM 2604]; P. Sorb. III
128 [TM 121875]; PSI IV 399 [TM 2082]; P. Vindob. Barbara inv. 34 [TM 47288]; SB VI 9556 col. i [TM 5787]; UPZ I
11 [TM 3402]; UPZ I 16 [TM 3407]; UPZ I 19 [TM 3410]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411]; UPZ I 41 [TM 3432]; UPZ I 42 [TM 3433].
13 petitions ask to make the other party hand over immovables: P. Eleph. Wagner 2 [TM
3343]; P. Texas inv. 1 [TM 873600]; UPZ I 10 [TM 3401]; UPZ I 11 [TM 3402].
6. Requests to make the other party abandon a claim or stop some harassment
27 petitions ask to make the other party abandon a claim or stop some harassment:
- 12 texts ask to forbid the other party from bothering (παρενοχλέω, περισπάω) the
petitioner: I. Prose 22 l. 19-42 [TM 6331]; P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Erasm. I 1 [TM 5048]; P. Köln Gr. XII 479 l. 15-
32 [TM 128733]; P. Köln Gr. XIII 516 [TM 219333]; P. Lips. II 124 l. 1-10 [TM 78440]; P. Tebt. I 43 [TM 3679]; UPZ I 9
[TM 3400]; UPZ I 106 l. 9-22 [TM 3498]; UPZ I 107 l. 10-26 [TM 3499]; UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500]; UPZ I 108 l. 21-36
[TM 3500].
- 4 texts ask to forbid the other party from extorting (διασείω) the petitioner: UPZ I 9
[TM 3400]; UPZ I 106 l. 9-22 [TM 3498]; UPZ I 107 l. 10-26 [TM 3499]; UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500].
- 4 texts ask to forbid the other party from laying hands (ἐπιβάλλω τὰς χεῖρας) on
the petitioner or some property: P. Frankf. 7 Ro col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 13 [TM 5101]; UPZ I 106 l. 9-22 [TM
3498]; UPZ I 107 l. 10-26 [TM 3499]; UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500].
- 10 texts ask to forbid the other party from trespassing (εἰσβιάζομαι,

προσπορεύομαι) on some property: P. Enteux. 69 [TM 3344]; P. Erasm. I 1 [TM 5048]; P. Tebt. III 771
(1) [TM 7849]; P. Tebt. III 771 (2) [TM 341742]; UPZ I 10 [TM 3401]; UPZ I 11 [TM 3402]; UPZ I 106 l. 9-22 [TM 3498];
UPZ I 107 l. 10-26 [TM 3499]; UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500]; UPZ I 108 l. 21-36 [TM 3500].
- 3 texts ask to forbid the other party from building (οἰκοδομέω) on some land: P.
Enteux. 69 [TM 3344]; P. Sorb. III 104 [TM 121857]; P. Yale I 46 (1) [TM 5538].
- 1 text asks to forbid the other party from hindering the petitioner’s building
activities (οἰκοδομέω): P. Enteux. 13 [TM 3290].
- 9 texts use other expressions: P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Enteux. 11 [TM 3288]; P. Enteux. 48 [TM 3323];
P. Enteux. 54 [TM 3329]; P. Enteux. 87 [TM 3385]; P. Erasm. I 1 [TM 5048]; P. Lips. II 124 l. 21-62 [TM 78440]; P.
Sorb. III 104 [TM 121857]; PSI IV 383 l. 7-17 [TM 2067].
Four of these petitions only ask for temporary protection, until an examination or
judgement of their case has taken place: P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Enteux. 54 [TM
3329]; P. Enteux. 69 [TM 3344]; P. Köln Gr. XIII 516 [TM 219333]. Four other petitions
add a request for permission to put up a white board or stela in order to proclaim
the petitioner’s inviolability: I. Prose 22 l. 19-42 [TM 6331]; UPZ I 106 l. 9-22 [TM
3498]; UPZ I 107 l. 10-26 [TM 3499]; UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500].
7. Requests to make the other party do justice
10 petitions ask to make the other party do justice (τὸ δίκαιον / τὰ δίκαια
ἀποδίδωμι / ποιέω / ὑπέχω) to the petitioner: P. Cairo Zen. III 59460 [TM 1099]; P. Enteux. 1 [TM
3279]; P. Enteux. 26 [TM 3301]; P. Enteux. 29 [TM 3304]; P. Enteux. 59 [TM 3334]; P. Enteux. 91 [TM 3381]; P. Hibeh
II 201 l. 1-10 [TM 5185]; P. Sorb. III 106 [TM 2605]; P. Sorb. III 109 [TM 2601]; UPZ I 6 [TM 3397].
8. Requests concerning seizure or blocking of property
3 petitions (P. Enteux. 3 [TM 3281]; P. Enteux. 54 [TM 3329]; P. Sorb. III 107 [TM
121858]) ask to (temporarily) seize or block some property, and 1 petition (P.
Enteux. 85 [TM 3387]) asks to put an end to the seizure or blocking of some
property.
9. Requests for release from detention
P. Col. Zen. II 83 [TM 1796] asks to release the petitioner’s son from detention.
10. Requests to initiate proceedings before the chrematistai
10 petitions ask to initiate proceedings before the chrematistai: P. Athen. 5 [TM 77951]; P.
Cairo Zen. IV 59619 [TM 1251]; P. Col. Zen. II 83 [TM 1796]; P. Erasm. I 1 [TM 5048]; P. Fay. 11 [TM 8084]; P. Fay. 12
[TM 8334]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 b [TM 3638]; SB VI 9065 [TM 5721]; SB XXII 15558 [TM
8350].
11. General requests for support
4 petitions make requests for justice (δίκαιον / δίκαια), which are closely related to
the concluding appeals to justice that can be found in several petitions: P. Enteux. 73
[TM 3348]; P. Enteux. 112 [TM 3360]; P. Münch. III 51 [TM 5250]; P. TCD Pap. Gr. env. 86/87 Ro [TM 8832].
12. Other requests, attested exclusively in royal ἐντεύξεις
20 petitions make requests that do not fit any of the above categories and are only
attested in royal ἐντεύξεις:
- 4 texts ask to recognise the petitioners’ claim on some immovable property: P. Cairo
Zen. IV 59620 [TM 1252]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59621 [TM 1253]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 b [TM
3638].
- 4 texts ask to make the other party swear an oath: P. Enteux. 45 [TM 3320]; P. Enteux. 46 [TM
3321]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 376 [TM 3073]; P. Sorb. III 128 [TM 121875].
- 3 texts ask to confirm the appointment of legal representatives: P. Tebt. III 770 [TM
5363]; UPZ I 6 [TM 3397]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411].
- 2 texts ask to exempt the petitioner’s brother from missions, so that he can protect
the petitioner: UPZ I 15 [TM 3406]; UPZ I 16 [TM 3407].
- I. Prose 19 [TM 5950] asks to make the other party resume deliveries to the temple.
- P. Amh. II 33 [TM 8669] asks to enforce the royal prohibition against using
advocates in lawsuits related to the royal revenue.
- P. Enteux. 25 [TM 3300] asks to make the other party support his elderly father.
- P. Enteux. 53 [TM 3328] asks to make the other party sign a contract related to
some work.
- P. Enteux. 60 [TM 3335] asks to make the other party take over the petitioner’s
land (which the other party accidentally inundated) and give other land in
exchange.
- P. Enteux. 81 [TM 3356] asks to make the other party give security for his
appearance before court.
- UPZ I 4 [TM 3395] asks to return a kidnapped girl.
- UPZ I 19 [TM 3410] asks to prevent the allowances of the petitioners from being
given to their treacherous mother.
1.4.2. Non-dispute-related petitions
23 petitions are not dispute-related: nine ask for the right of asylia (1), three ask for
authorisation to replace dilapidated sanctuaries and looms (2), and 11 make other
kinds of requests (3).
1. Petitions for the right of asylia102
Nine petitions make requests for the right of asylia: I. Prose 32 l. 7-47 [TM 8160]; I. Prose 33 [TM
7228]; I. Prose 34 [TM 7229]; I. Prose 37 l. 11-52 [TM 7237]; I. Prose 38 l. 2-28 [TM 7230]; I. Prose 39 l. 2-35 [TM
7231]; I. Prose 42 l. 9-44 [TM 6605]; I. Prose 43 l. 8-42 [TM 8805]; I. Prose 44 l. 8-37 [TM 7232].
All these petitions emanate from temples from the 1st century BC Fayum and have
been preserved on stelae that were set up at these temples. I. Prose 33 [TM 7228]
and I. Prose 34 [TM 7229], and I. Prose 42 l. 9-44 [TM 6605], I. Prose 43 l. 8-42 [TM
8805] and I. Prose 44 l. 8-37 [TM 7232] are copies of the same texts. Several of these
petitions refer to attacks by officials and other individuals against the sanctuaries in
question, 103 but the descriptions of these attacks are very generic and vague:
offenders or offenses are never specified. They seem to serve as rhetorical
framework for the asylia requests, rather than as actual complaints of harassment.
For that reason, these documents have not been categorised among the dispute-
102
For an overview of the right of asylia in Egypt and elsewhere, see RIGSBY, Asylia; he also discusses these
petitions on p. 540-573. FISCHER-BOVET (‘Un aspect des conséquences des réformes de l’armée lagide’) examines
these petitions in the context of the relationship between the Egyptian temples and the military.
103
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 45; FISCHER-BOVET, ‘Un aspect des conséquences des réformes de l’armée
lagide’, p. 147-148.
related petitions. Interestingly, some of these petitions were written in close

collaboration with highly placed individuals with access to the royal court.104
2. Petitions for authorisation to replace dilapidated sanctuaries and looms105
Three petitions ask for authorisation to replace dilapidated sanctuaries (P. Enteux. 6
[TM 3283]; P. Enteux. 7 [TM 3284]) and looms (SB XVIII 13312 [TM 2548]).
3. Other petitions
The remaining 11 petitions are of different nature:
- In O. Hor Gr. E [TM 44762], the pastophoros Hor informs the rulers about an oracle.
- In P. Cairo Zen. V 59832 [TM 1456], Zenon explains his difficulties with the
settlement of debts after the winding-up of Apollonios’ dorea and asks to make
some rearrangements related to these debts.
- In P. Enteux. 15 [TM 3292], a minor who inherited a mortgaged vineyard from his
brother asks to renew the mortgage in the name of the deceased instead of his own
name.
- P. Enteux. 17 [TM 3294] is a petition for official assignment of a seemingly

uncontested inheritance. Anyone opposing this should be sent (ἀποστέλλω) to the
strategos and forced to do justice (τὰ δίκαια ποιέω) to the petitioner.
- P. Enteux. 22 [TM 3297] is a petition by a widow for official registration of a new

kyrios.
- P. Enteux. 27 [TM 3302] is a petition by a skipper who had been ordered to

transport corn from the Thebaid but had not been able to sail there because his ship
got damaged in a storm. In this ἔντευξις, he asks to examine his case (ἐπισκέπτομαι)
and, if his story turns out to be true, to load the boat with corn from the Arsinoite
nome, lest it would arrive at its destination empty.
- P. Enteux. 61 [TM 3336] is a petition for official registration of a purchase of

auctioned property.
- P. Meyer 1 [TM 5901] is a petition by a group of katoikoi hippeis who had

accidentally received fertile instead of infertile land from the state, land that was
moreover subject to a favourable tax regime. In this ἔντευξις, they ask for
permission to keep this land and the favourable tax regime, even though the
dioiketes had ordered to remedy this situation.
104
I. Prose 32 l. 7-47 [TM 8160]; I. Prose 37 l. 11-52 [TM 7237]; I. Prose 38 l. 2-28 [TM 7230]; I. Prose 39 l. 2-35 [TM
7231]. Cf. FISCHER-BOVET, ‘Un aspect des conséquences des réformes de l’armée lagide’, p. 151, 162-163.
105
- PSI V 541 [TM 2163] is an unusually brief document, in which a certain Aigyptos
asks the king to “place him wherever seems fit” (κατατάξαι με οὗ σοι φαίνεται).
COLLOMP, who called this text “la plus étrange de toutes [ἐντεύξεις]” and
“absolument vide de fond”, wondered whether this text might be some kind of
model for messages to the king, or a rhetorical - ideological statement in which
Egypt (Αἴγυπτος) declares its loyalty to the Ptolemies.106 WILCKEN and DI BITONTO, on
the other hand, identified this document as a petition for employment.107 This last
interpretation seems more plausible.
- SB VI 9302 [TM 6212] is a petition by a kleruch concerning a drought in the

Thebaid, in which he asks for permission to expound his ideas concerning this
problem to the king.
- In UPZ I 14 l. 5-34 [TM 3405], Ptolemaios son of Glaukos, the famous katochos from
the Serapeion of Memphis, asks to enrol his brother in the army unit stationed at
Memphis, so that he might protect and support him.
1.4.3. Fragmentary or incompletely published petitions of uncertain nature
20 royal ἐντεύξεις are so fragmentary or incompletely published that their context

cannot be adequately assessed: I. Prose 24 l. 39-50 [TM 6403]; I. Prose 24 l. 53-66 [TM 6403]; P. Alex. p.
18 no. 447 [TM 77928]; P. Alex. p. 18 no. 559 [TM 5017]; P. Enteux. 16 [TM 3293]; P. Enteux. 104 [TM 3368]; P.
Enteux. 105 [TM 3367]; P. Enteux. 110 [TM 3362]; P. Enteux. 113 [TM 3359]; P. Frankf. 3 l. 10-12 [TM 5098]; P. Heid.
Gr. VI 377 [TM 3074]; P. Mich. XVIII 780 b [TM 8775]; P. Petrie Kleon 73 l. 4-5 [TM 7662]; P. Sorb. III 125 [TM
121872]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 96 [TM 3923]; P. Strasb. Gr. VII 644 [TM 3957]; P. Tebt. I 124 l. 1-22 [TM 3760]; P. Tebt. III
740 Vo [TM 5343]; SB III 6134 [TM 7199]; SB XVI 13014 [TM 4199].
In P. Strasb. Gr. VII 644 [TM 3957], a request for an examination (ἐπισκέπτομαι) is
preserved.
106
COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 74. However, note that one would expect
feminine rather than masculine participles and adjectives in the rest of the text, if Αἴγυπτος would refer to
Egypt.
107
DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 46; WILCKEN, ‘Papyrus-Urkunden’ [1920], p. 401.
2. NON-ROYAL ἐντεύξεις WITH PETITIONING FUNCTION
2.1. List
P. Cairo Zen. II 793 256 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon designated as

59145 ἔντευξις
P. Cairo Zen. II 799 256 BC Herakleopolites dioiketes Zenon
59151
P. Cairo Zen. II 835 255 BC Memphites Zenon Zenon
59189
P. Cairo Zen. II 869 253 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
59224
P. Cairo Zen. II 881 253 - 252 Arsinoites dioiketes Zenon designated as
P. Cairo Zen. II 935 250 - 249 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
59291 BC
P. Cairo Zen. III 984 ca. 247 BC Arsinoites dioiketes Zenon
59341 a l. 7-36
P. Cairo Zen. III 1022 ca. 254 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
59379 251 BC
P. Cairo Zen. III 1061 258 - 256 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
59421 BC
P. Cairo Zen. III 1083 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon (?) Zenon
59443 BC
59451 BC
59466 BC
P. Cairo Zen. III 1112 256 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon (?) Zenon
59474 BC
59492 BC
59495 BC
59520 BC
59528 BC
P. Cairo Zen. IV 1234 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
59601 BC
P. Cairo Zen. IV 1258 263 - 229 Arsinoites unclear Zenon
59627 BC
59628 BC
59629 BC
P. Coll. Youtie I 10 78159 ca. 250 - Arsinoites unclear
200 BC
P. Iand. Zen. 50 110102 263 - 245 Arsinoites Zenon (?) Zenon designated as
P. Lond. VII 1954 1517 257 BC Arsinoites dioiketes Zenon
P. Lond. VII 1955 1518 257 BC Arsinoites oikonomos Zenon designated as
ἔντευξις
P. Lond. VII 2045 1607 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
P. Mich. Zen. 29 1929 256 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
P. Mich. Zen. 87 1986 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
P. Petrie III 33 7428 ca. 242 BC Arsinoites basilikos
grammateus
P. Petrie Kleon 51 2611 256 BC Arsinoites architekton Kleon and
Theodoros
P. Petrie Kleon 58 7658 255 BC? Arsinoites architekton Kleon and
Theodoros
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 570 2426 ca. 254 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
251 BC
PSI IV 384 2068 ca. 248 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
PSI IV 402 2085 263 - 229 Arsinoites oikonomos Zenon
BC
PSI IV 419 2102 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
PSI V 532 2154 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
PSI V 539 2161 263 - 229 Arsinoites unclear Zenon
BC
PSI VI 591 2201 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
SB VI 9522 6227 3rd unclear unclear
century
BC
SB X 10260 4451 ca. 238 - Herakleopolites dioiketes
237 BC
SB XXII 15462 1654 255 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
Total: 41 texts
2.2. Addressees
Almost two thirds of the non-royal ἔντευξις petitions are addressed to Zenon (27
texts). Others are addressed to the basilikos grammateus (1 text), the architekton (2
texts), the dioiketes (5 texts) and the oikonomos (2 texts).
2.3. Form
Structure
In their fullest form, non-royal ἔντευξις petitions consist of five consecutive

elements: prescript, descriptive section, request, rhetorical conclusion and closing
formula. Their requests are regularly split up in different parts or merged with
descriptive sections, however, and three texts immediately start with the request,
without preceding descriptive section. Only a minority of the texts add a rhetorical
conclusion after the request: at least eight texts contain such a conclusion; at least
18 do not. One exceptional text, P. Iand. Zen. 50 [TM 110102], does not add a closing
formula.
Prescript
These texts are typically introduced by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα. Only
occasionally, the function of the addressee is indicated. Zenon is never addressed
with a title, nor are the oikonomoi Philiskos (PSI IV 402 [TM 2085]) and Zoilos (P.
Lond. VII 1955 [TM 1518]), and a certain Kleon (P. Coll. Youtie I 10 [TM 78159]).108
The dioiketai Apollonios (P. Cairo Zen. III 59341 a l. 7-36 [TM 984]; P. Lond. VII 1954
[TM 1517]), Diotimos (P. Cairo Zen. II 59236 [TM 881]) and Eutychos (SB X 10260 [TM
4451]), and the basilikos grammateus Asklepiades (P. Petrie III 33 [TM 7428]), on the
other hand, are identified with their titles. The architekton Kleon is addressed with
his title in one text (P. Petrie Kleon 51 [TM 2611]), but not in another (P. Petrie
Kleon 58 [TM 7658]).
Introduction of the body of the text
11 texts are introduced by formulas of the type ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό,109 two by genitive
absolute constructions, and one by a date indication. In three cases, the body of the
108
Probably, this Kleon is not the well-known architekton from the archive of Kleon and Theodoros: SCHERER in P.
Coll. Youtie I, p. 79-80.
109
P. Cairo Zen. II 59236 [TM 881], a petition submitted by a man on behalf of his father, is introduced by a
variant of this formula in the 3rd person: ἀδικῖταί μου ὁ πατὴρ Στράτιππος ὑπό.
text immediately starts with a request. Various expressions are used at the start of
the remaining texts.
Introduction of the request
17 texts introduce requests with δέομαι (in five cases followed by καὶ ἱκετεύω), and
nine with καλῶς (οὖν) ποιήσεις / ἂν (οὖν) ποιήσαις. Further, 11 texts formulate
requests in the imperative (or vetitive) form, without real introductory formula. P.
Iand. Zen. 50 [TM 110102] introduces its request with the formula ἐνεύ̣[χ̣]ο̣μαι
̣ , μή (...).110 Several
τὴν ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ α[ ̣]του βασι̣[λεί]α̣ν καὶ τ̣[ ̣ ̣] Ἀπολλωνίο̣υ̣ εὐημερ̣ί̣αν
texts add the polite expression εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ or ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται to the request.
The expression εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ (12 texts) appears 7 times with δέομαι, 3 times with
requests in the imperative form, once with καλῶς ποιήσεις, and once in a more
fragmentary context. The expression ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται (1 text: PSI IV 384 [TM
2068]) appears with καλῶς ἂν οὖν ποιήσαις.
Rhetorical conclusion
rulers, and (4) conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to do justice. In the non-
royal ἔντευξις petitions, conclusions of the first and fourth type can be found. With
two exceptions, all of these conclusions are directly attached to the request as final
clauses, introduced by ἵνα / ὅπως (6 texts). In P. Ryl. Gr. IV 570 [TM 2426], the
conclusion is constructed by ὥστε + infinitive: ὥστε δύνασθαί σοι τὰ δίκαια ποεῖν. In
P. Cairo Zen. III 59495 [TM 1133], the conclusion is introduced by a καταφυγή
formula: πρὸς σὲ οὖν καταφυγγάνομεν, ἵνα ἐλεημοσύνης τύχωμεν. P. Cairo Zen. II
59224 [TM 869] adds the formula ἐπὶ σὲ καταφυγών to the conclusion.
This type of conclusion appears in seven texts:
110
For parallels, see SCHMITZ in P. Iand. Zen., p. 129-130.
- 6 texts contain appeals to justice (δίκαιον);111
- 1 text does not only contain an appeal to justice, but also an appeal to the
addressee’s philanthropy (φιλανθρωπία);
- 1 text contains an appeal to the addressee’s mercy (ἐλεημοσύνη).
2. Conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to do justice
This type of conclusion appears in one text: P. Ryl. Gr. IV 570 [TM 2426].
Closing formula
All texts are closed by the final salutation εὐτύχει.
2.4. Content
With only one exception, all non-royal ἔντευξις petitions are dispute-related.
Topics
- Violence (4 texts): P. Cairo Zen. II 59224 [TM 869] (?); P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 [TM 1083]; P. Petrie III 33
[TM 7428] (?); P. Ryl. Gr. IV 570 [TM 2426].
- Misconduct or negligence by authorities (9 texts): P. Cairo Zen. II 59151 [TM 799] (?); P. Cairo
Zen. II 59236 [TM 881]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59451 [TM 1090]; P. Lond. VII 1954 [TM 1517]; P. Lond. VII 1955 [TM 1518];
P. Mich. Zen. 29 [TM 1929]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 570 [TM 2426]; PSI V 539 [TM 2161]; SB X 10260 [TM 4451].
- Detention (10 texts): P. Cairo Zen. III 59492 [TM 1130]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59495 [TM 1133]; P. Cairo Zen. III
59520 [TM 1157]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59601 [TM 1234]; P. Lond. VII 2045 [TM 1607]; P. Mich. Zen. 87 [TM 1986]; P.
Petrie Kleon 58 [TM 7658]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 570 [TM 2426]; PSI IV 419 [TM 2102]; PSI V 532 [TM 2154].
111
Two texts formulate this appeal to justice in a negative way, with the verb ἀδικέω.
- Theft (4 texts): P. Cairo Zen. II 59145 [TM 793]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59224 [TM 869] (?); P. Cairo Zen. III 59379
[TM 1022]; SB XXII 15462 [TM 1654] (?).
- Use and ownership of immovable property (2 texts): P. Lond. VII 1954 [TM 1517]; P. Lond. VII
1955 [TM 1518].
- Sales (3 texts): P. Cairo Zen. III 59341 a l. 7-36 [TM 984]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59628 [TM 1259] (?); SB XXII 15462
[TM 1654] (?).
- Loans and property given in safekeeping (2 texts): P. Cairo Zen. III 59528 [TM 1165]; PSI V 532
[TM 2154].
- Sureties and securities (1 text): PSI IV 384 [TM 2068].
- Work agreements (2 texts): P. Cairo Zen. II 59291 [TM 935]; P. Petrie Kleon 51 [TM 2611].
- Taxes and rent due to the state (4 texts): P. Cairo Zen. II 59151 [TM 799] (?); P. Cairo Zen. II 59189
[TM 835] (?); P. Cairo Zen. II 59236 [TM 881]; SB VI 9522 [TM 6227] (?).
- Disputes of uncertain nature: P. Cairo Zen. III 59421 [TM 1061]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59466 [TM 1104]; P.
Cairo Zen. III 59474 [TM 1122]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59627 [TM 1258]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59629 [TM 1260]; P. Coll. Youtie I
10 [TM 78159]; P. Iand. Zen. 50 [TM 110102]; PSI VI 591 [TM 2201].
Requests

judgement, (4) requests to make the other party hand over property, (5) requests
concerning seizure or blocking of property, (6) requests for release from detention,
(7) requests for release from liturgical obligations, (8) general requests for support,
and (9) some other requests that do not fit any of the above categories and are
exclusively attested in non-royal ἐντεύξεις.
Some petitions ask to summon or bring the other party (3 texts: P. Cairo Zen. II
59224 [TM 869]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59291 [TM 935]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 [TM 1083]),
the petitioner (2 texts: P. Lond. VII 1954 [TM 1517]; P. Lond. VII 1955 [TM 1518]) or
witnesses (1 text: P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 [TM 1083]) before an authority. This action
is referred to with the following verbs:
- 1 text uses ἀνακαλέομαι (“to summon”): P. Cairo Zen. II 59291 [TM 935].
- 1 text uses εἰσκαλέομαι (“to summon”): P. Lond. VII 1954 [TM 1517].
- 1 text uses μεταπέμπομαι (“to summon”): P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 [TM 1083].
- 1 text uses ἀποκαθίστημι (“to bring”): P. Cairo Zen. II 59224 [TM 869].
- 1 text uses εἰσάγω (“to bring”): P. Lond. VII 1955 [TM 1518].
- 6 texts use ἐπισκέπτομαι (“to investigate”): P. Cairo Zen. II 59151 [TM 799]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59236
[TM 881]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59291 [TM 935]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59421 [TM 1061]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 [TM 1083]; P.
Cairo Zen. IV 59629 [TM 1260].
- 1 text uses εἰσακούω (“to hear”): PSI VI 591 [TM 2201].
In PSI IV 419 [TM 2102], three prisoners ask for a judgement (διακρίνω).
3 petitions ask to make the other party hand over money or movables: P. Cairo Zen. III
59341 a l. 7-36 [TM 984]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59379 [TM 1022]; P. Mich. Zen. 29 [TM 1929].
PSI V 539 [TM 2161] asks to put an end to the seizure or blocking of some property
(wine in this case).
8 petitions ask to release the petitioners from detention: P. Cairo Zen. III 59492 [TM 1130]; P.
Cairo Zen. III 59495 [TM 1133]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59520 [TM 1157]; P. Lond. VII 2045 [TM 1607]; P. Mich. Zen. 87 [TM
1986]; P. Petrie Kleon 58 [TM 7658]; PSI IV 419 [TM 2102]; PSI V 532 [TM 2154].
In one of these texts, P. Lond. VII 2045 [TM 1607], the addressee is asked to bail the
petitioner out.
7. Requests for release from liturgical obligations
In P. Cairo Zen. III 59451 [TM 1090], two hierodouloi ask for exemption from public
service.
3 petitions make requests for justice (δίκαιον / δίκαια), which are closely related to
the concluding appeals to justice that can be found in several petitions: P. Petrie Kleon
51 [TM 2611]; SB VI 9522 [TM 6227]; SB XXII 15462 [TM 1654].
The petitioner of P. Iand. Zen. 50 [TM 110102] asks not to ignore his petition (μὴ
παρακούσῃς τῆς ἐντεύξεως).
9. Other requests, attested exclusively in non-royal ἐντεύξεις
attested in non-royal ἐντεύξεις:
- P. Cairo Zen. II 59145 [TM 793] asks to return some articles that were stolen from
the petitioner but found by the police.
- P. Cairo Zen. II 59236 [TM 881] asks to make the oikonomos and basilikos
grammateus calculate the taxes due by the petitioner’s father by taking the average
yield of the last three years as a basis instead of that of the last two years.
- P. Cairo Zen. III 59466 [TM 1104] asks to let the petitioner’s case be tried in a place
where both parties of the dispute are strangers instead of in the town where the
other party lives.
- In P. Petrie Kleon 51 [TM 2611], stoneworkers who are treated unjustly by their
superintendent ask for fair working conditions.
- PSI IV 384 [TM 2068] asks to make a debtor return to town, so that he can work and
pay his debts himself instead of his surety.
In PSI IV 402 [TM 2085], a lentil-cook from Philadelpheia who faces heavy
competition from the pumpkinseed sellers from the same city begs the oikonomos
for postponement for the payment of his taxes.
3. NON-ROYAL ἐντεύξεις WITHOUT PETITIONING FUNCTION
3.1. List
P. Cairo Collège de la 566331 ca. 250 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon

Sainte-Famille inv. 1 BC
P. Cairo Zen. I 59021 681 258 BC Alexandria (?) dioiketes Zenon
P. Cairo Zen. I 59034 694 257 BC Alexandria (?) dioiketes Zenon
P. Cairo Zen. I 59121 770 256 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
P. Cairo Zen. I 59122 771 257 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon

256 BC
P. Cairo Zen. III 59317 961 250 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
P. Cairo Zen. III 59403 1045 263 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
229 BC
229 BC
P. Cairo Zen. III 59410 1052 259 - Arsinoites Zenon (?) Zenon
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
248 BC
229 BC
P. Cairo Zen. III 59471 1109 263 - Arsinoites unclear Zenon
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59622 1254 263 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon designated as
P. Cairo Zen. V 59838 1462 263 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
229 BC
P. Cairo Zen. V 59852 1476 243 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
229 BC
P. Col. Zen. I 19 1739 257 BC Alexandria (?) Zenon Zenon
P. Col. Zen. I 51 1767 251 / Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
250 BC
P. Hibeh I 35 8187 ca. 250 Herakleopolites unclear
BC
P. Iand. Zen. 30 110082 263 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
229 BC
P. Lond. VII 2031 1593 263 - Arsinoites Zenon (?) Zenon
229 BC
P. Lond. VII 2038 1600 263 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
229 BC

229 BC
229 BC
P. Lond. VII 2054 1616 263 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon designated as
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
P. Mich. Zen. 60 1960 248 / Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
247 BC
P. Mich. Zen. 100 1999 ca. 258 - Arsinoites dioiketes Zenon
257 BC
P. Petrie Kleon 50 44593 256 BC Arsinoites architekton Kleon and designated as
Theodoros ἔντευξις
P. Petrie Kleon 55 7647 255 BC Arsinoites architekton Kleon and
Theodoros
P. Petrie Kleon 60 7641 ca. 260 - Arsinoites architekton Kleon and
249 BC Theodoros
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 569 2425 263 - Arsinoites Zenon (?) Zenon
229 BC
PSI IV 341 2029 256 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
PSI IV 352 2040 253 BC Arsinoites (?) Zenon Zenon
PSI IV 372 2057 250 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
PSI IV 414 2097 263 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
229 BC
PSI IV 423 2106 263 - Arsinoites Zenon (?) Zenon
229 BC
PSI V 488 l. 10-20 2119 257 BC Memphites (?) dioiketes Zenon
PSI V 531 2153 263 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
229 BC
PSI V 538 2160 258 - Arsinoites dioiketes Zenon
256 BC?
PSI VI 551 Ro 2171 258 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
256 BC?
PSI VI 571 2185 252 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
251 BC
229 BC
229 BC
PSI VI 611 2220 248 - Arsinoites unclear Zenon
239 BC

229 BC
PSI VI 656 2257 263 - Arsinoites unclear Zenon
229 BC
PUG IV 159 703050 ca. 275 - Arsinoites unclear Zenon
225 BC (related)
SB XX 14624 5710 258 - Arsinoites dioiketes Zenon
256 BC
Total: 65 texts
3.2. Addressees
Most non-royal ἐντεύξεις without petitioning function are addressed to Zenon (51
texts). Others are addressed to the architekton (3 texts) and the dioiketes (6 texts).
3.3. Form
Structure
The non-royal ἐντεύξεις without petitioning function are the most freely structured
group of ἐντεύξεις. Most of them (at least 47 texts) make a request, but some (at
least 7 texts) do not. Requests are often split up in different parts or merged with
descriptive sections. 12 texts immediately start with the request, without preceding
descriptive section. All texts end with a closing formula.
Prescript
These texts are typically introduced by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα. Only
occasionally, the function of the addressee is indicated. Zenon is never addressed
with a title, nor are the architekton Kleon (P. Petrie Kleon 50 [TM 44593]; P. Petrie
Kleon 55 [TM 7647]; P. Petrie Kleon 60 [TM 7641]) and some other unknown
individuals (P. Hibeh I 35 [TM 8187]; PSI VI 611 [TM 2220]; PUG IV 159 [TM 703050]).
The dioiketes Apollonios is identified with his title in four texts (P. Mich. Zen. 100
[TM 1999]; PSI V 488 l. 10-20 [TM 2119]; PSI V 538 [TM 2160]; SB XX 14624 [M 5710]),
but not in two others (P. Cairo Zen. I 59021 [TM 681]; P. Cairo Zen. I 59034 [TM 694]).
One text is introduced by a genitive absolute construction and another by the

conjunction ἐπειδή. In 12 cases, the body of the text immediately starts with a
request. Various expressions are used at the start of the remaining texts.
20 texts introduce requests with καλῶς (οὖν) ποιήσεις / ἂν (οὖν) ποιήσαις, six with
δέομαι, and four with ἀξιῶ. Further, 25 texts formulate requests in the imperative
(or vetitive) form, without real introductory formula. P. Lond. VII 2046 [TM 1608]
and P. Lond. VII 2055 [TM 1617] use an independent final clause in order to express
the request: εἰ οὖν σοι δοκεῖ, ἵνα ὑπάρχω καὶ ὧδε πα̣[ρὰ σοί] (“if it seems good to
you, let me be here with you”), and εἴ σοι δοκεῖ, ἵνα παρὰ σοὶ ἐργάζωμαι τὰς
ψιλοτάπιδας (“if it seems good to you, let me work on the carpets for you”). PSI IV
420 [TM 2103] contains a direct question: τί οὖν μοι συντάσσεις (“so what do you
order me to do?”). P. Cairo Zen. I 59021 [TM 681], finally, introduces its request with
the formula γέγραφα οὖν σοι ταῦτα ἵνα (“I have written you these things so that”).
Several texts add the polite expression εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ or ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται to the
request. The expression εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ (22 texts, 25 attestations) appears 12 times
with requests in the imperative form, 6 times with καλῶς (οὖν) ποιήσεις / ἂν (οὖν)
ποιήσαις, 5 times with δέομαι, and twice with independent final clauses expressing
the request. The expression ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται (3 texts) appears once with ἀξιῶ,
once with the formula γέγραφα οὖν σοι ταῦτα ἵνα, and once with a request in the
vetitive form.
Closing formula
42 texts are closed by the final salutation εὐτύχει. In P. Petrie Kleon 50 [TM 44593],
the date is added after this salutation. In nine closings εὐτύχει is missing: five texts
are closed by ἔρρωσο (P. Cairo Zen. I 59021 [TM 681]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59409 [TM
1051]; P. Cairo Zen. V 59852 [TM 1476]; P. Col. Zen. I 51 [TM 1767]; P. Mich. Zen. 60
[TM 1960]), three texts by ἔρρωσο and the date (P. Cairo Zen. I 59121 [TM 770]; P.
Col. Zen. I 19 [TM 1739]; PSI IV 372 [TM 2057]), and one text by the date without
final salutation (P. Petrie Kleon 55 [TM 7647]).
3.4. Content
The non-royal ἔντευξις appears to have been a rather flexible format for
communications with the authorities. Most non-royal ἐντεύξεις without petitioning
function contain requests, but these requests seem so ordinary that the documents
cannot qualify as petitions. Regularly, reports and requests concerning various
matters are combined in a single text.
Due to the sheer variety of the topics touched upon in these texts, it does not seem
desirable to offer a lengthy discussion of their content here. Most are connected to
daily business concerns. One text with request and another without can serve as
examples:
- P. Cairo Zen. III 59483 [TM 1121] (263 - 229 BC)
Ζήνωνι χαίρειν Πᾶις. | εἴ σοι δοκεῖ, συντάξαι | δοῦναι εἰς πάκτωσιν | τοῦ
πλοίου ὅ τι ἄν σοι δό|ξηι, πρὸς καταπλῶι | γάρ ἐσμεν, ἵνα μή τι | πάθηι
καὶ πράγμα|τʼ ἔχωμεν, καὶ ἥλους | ὀκταδακτύλους ι | καὶ τὴν
σιτομετρίαν | ἀπὸ Μεχεὶρ ιε καὶ | φ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]λ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ε[̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ε̣ν | δ̣ ̣ τ̣ὸ̣[ν]
κατάπλουν | καὶ τὸ̣ λοιπὸν̣ [ὀ]ψ̣ώνι|ον. ἔχω δὲ καὶ πα|ρὰ Πετεχώνσιος |
οἴνου κεράμιον | καὶ χαλκῶν (δραχμὰς) γ | τοῦ Παχώνς. | εὐτύχει.
“To Zenon, greetings, Pais. If it seems good to you, order to give

whatever seems fit to you for the caulking of the boat, for we are about
to sail down the river, so that nothing may happen to it and we may not
run into trouble, and also ten nails of eight dactyls, my corn allowance
from the 15th of Mecheir onwards, ... the voyage, and the rest of my
salary. I have received a jar of wine and three bronze drachmae for
Pachons. Farewell.”
- P. Col. Zen. I 19 [TM 1739] (257 BC)
Ζήνωνι χαίρειν Κτησίας. ἔγραψάς μοι ἵνα δῶ Ἀριστεῖ ὥστε | τῆι

Ἀμύντου γυναικὶ εἰς τὰ Θεσμοφόρια χῖα δύο. διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπι|δημεῖν οὖν
τὸν Ἀριστέα οὐθενὶ δέδωκα. ἤκουον δὲ αὐτὸν παρέ|σεσθαι ὀλίγων
ἡμερῶν. | ἔρρωσο. (ἔτους) κθ Δίου β.
“To Zenon, greetings, Ktesias. You wrote me to give Aristeus two jars of
Chian wine for the wife of Amyntas for the Thesmophoria. But since
Aristeus is not at home, I have not given them to anyone. I heard that
he will be here in a few days. Farewell. Year 29, Dios 2.”
Chapter II: ὑπομνήματα
INTRODUCTION
The ὑπόμνημα constitutes one of the best-represented types of texts from Ptolemaic
Egypt and appears to have been the most popular Ptolemaic text format used for
communications after the letter.112 In contrast to letters, however, ὑπομνήματα
were, as a rule, delivered to their addressees in person, just like ἐντεύξεις and
mḳmḳ.113 In its most basic sense, the Greek word ὑπόμνημα (derived from the verb
ὑπομιμνήσκω) meant “reminder”. Usually, the term was used to denote written
documents (which could serve as reminder).114 The contemporary English word
“memorandum”, derived from the Latin gerundive form of “memoro”, is used in a
similar way. Two major categories can be distinguished among the Ptolemaic
ὑπομνήματα: a group of early ὑπομνήματα (112 texts), which are mainly known
from the archive of Zenon (to which 94 out of the 112 texts belong), and a group of
later ὑπομνήματα (570 texts) which replaced the early ὑπόμνημα at about 240 - 220
BC.115 The ὑπόμνημα also had a Demotic counterpart, the mḳmḳ, discussed in chapter
IV.
The most conspicuous difference between the early and later ὑπομνήματα pertains
to their prescript. The prescripts of the early ὑπομνήματα actually contain the word
ὑπόμνημα, followed by the identification of the addressee (in the dative) and the
submitter (expressed by παρά + genitive). Usually the addressee precedes the
submitter (84 texts), but sometimes the submitter comes first (6 texts). The later
ὑπομνήματα use a shortened form of this early prescript, sticking to the most
common order: τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος.116 Another formal difference between the
112
QUENOUILLE’s approach to the ὑπόμνημα (‘Hypomnema und seine verschiedenen Bedeutungen’) radically
differs from that adopted in this study, apparently considering the term as a label primarily given to documents
on the basis of their content, rather than their format.
113
114
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 165, 168-172, 180.
115
In 15 cases, it is unclear whether a particular ὑπόμνημα belongs to the first or second category: see below, p.
69. Several documents which have traditionally been set apart as προσαγγέλματα are also included in the
category of later ὑπομνήματα in this study: see chapter VI, p. 197-218.
116
For the prescript of ὑπομνήματα, see BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 164-167;
DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, p. 114-115; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel
periodo tolemaico’, p. 62-68; MARTIN, ‘Τῷ δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος’, p. 661-670; MITTEIS, Grundzüge, p. 57; WILCKEN,
‘Papyrus-Urkunden’ [1920], p. 391; ZIEMANN, De epistularum graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae, p.
262-266. MARTIN (‘Τῷ δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος’) argues that τῶι δεῖνι and παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος should be interpreted as
two distinct structural entities, constituting the prescript and the start of the body of the text, rather than two
68 CHAPTER II: ὑπομνήματα
early and later ὑπομνήματα relates to their style: the later ὑπομνήματα are
generally much more elaborate than their predecessors.117 Regarding content, there
are clear differences between the early and later ὑπομνήματα as well. The later
ὑπομνήματα constitute a rather homogenous group of texts: 497 of them are
petitions; the remaining 73 examples are other formal communications to the
authorities. The early ὑπομνήματα are a more varied group of texts: only 14 of them
are petitions; the remaining 98 examples are other types of documents, mostly but
not exclusively communications to the authorities.
It is difficult to pin down a precise chronological framework for the evolution from
the early to later ὑπόμνημα.118 The general style and content of the ὑπομνήματα
cannot serve as stable criteria for examining this evolution; the only stable
difference between the early and later ὑπομνήματα is their different prescript. The
latest ὑπομνήματα with early prescript that can be dated with some precision are P.
Mich. Zen. 67 [TM 1967] (243 BC), P. Petrie III 29 a l. 10-17 [TM 7411] (242 BC), P.
Lond. VII 2017 [TM 1579] (242 - 241 BC), P. Cairo Zen. III 59368 l. 12-35 [TM 1011] (241
BC), P. Hibeh I 72 l. 4-14 [TM 8221] (241 BC), P. Petrie III 43.6 [TM 7445] (239 BC), P.
NYU II 45 l. 8-16 [TM 6433] (237 / 212 / 195 BC) and P. Eleph. Gr. 17 [TM 5850] (223
BC). The earliest ὑπομνήματα with later prescript that can be dated with some
precision are CdE 42 p. 355-359 [TM 115834] (240 / 230 BC), P. Tebt. III 772 [TM 5364]
(236 BC), SB XVIII 13099 (232 - 226 BC), BGU VI 1244 [TM 4405] (225 BC), Chrest.
Wilck. 304 l. 7-16 [TM 41800] (223 BC), P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a [TM 44603] (223 BC), P.
Petrie III 32 f Ro [TM 7426] (223 BC), P. Petrie III 32 f Vo col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 6 [TM
7426] (223 BC) and P. Petrie III 32 f Vo col. ii l. 7-13 [TM 7426] (223 BC). Further,
seven ὑπομνήματα that use the later prescript certainly date from the period
between 244 and 222 BC, because they are addressed to the strategos Aphthonetos,
who was in office during that period.119 Interestingly, one ὑπόμνημα with early
prescript addressed to this official has been preserved as well: P. Petrie III 29 a l. 10-
17 [TM 7411] (242 BC). All this suggests that the evolution from the early to the later
complementary components of the prescript, because several ὑπομνήματα from the 2nd century BC onwards
separate the identification of the addressee and submitter by a return to the line or a vacat, and sometimes
accentuate this separation by decreasing the indent of the lines that identify the addressee or by starting the
word παρά with a magnified pi. This distinction in the ὑπόμνημα lay-out does not need to reflect a real
structural distinction, however, or mean that the identification of the submitter does not belong to the
prescript. The formula τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος was derived from the earlier formula ὑπόμνημα τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ
τοῦ δεῖνος, and in this earlier formula the two components were clearly tightly connected, since they could
change places with each other. It seems more straightforward to view the separation between τῶι δεῖνι and
παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος in the later ὑπομνήματα simply as a visual device, used to highlight the addressee of the text.
This idea finds support in later ὑπομνήματα in which the identification of the addressee and submitter are not
set apart from each other, but the indent of the first line is still decreased in order to accentuate the
identification of the addressee (e.g. P. Duke inv. 676 [TM 58467]; PSI VII 815 [TM 5565]; SB XX 15068 [TM 8124]).
117
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 166-167, 180-181. See also chapter V, p. 169-
182.
118
Many of the dates offered by BICKERMANN in his discussion of the chronology of this evolution (‘Beiträge zur
antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 166) are obsolete.
119
P. Petrie III 29 b [TM 7412], P. Petrie III 29 c [TM 7413], P. Petrie III 29 d [TM 7414], P. Petrie III 29 e [TM 7415],
P. Petrie III 29 f [TM 7416], P. Petrie III 29 g [TM 7417] and P. Petrie III 29 h [TM 7418].
CHAPTER II: ὑπομνήματα 69
prescript took place during the 230’s - 220’s BC, but it is not clear whether this
evolution was marked by a sudden break or a longer period of transition. The latest
precisely dated ὑπόμνημα with early prescript, P. Eleph. Gr. 17 [TM 5850] (223 BC),
appears to be an exception: this text comes from the archive of the praktor Milon,
and all other ὑπομνήματα from this archive use the later ὑπόμνημα prescript.120 If
(1) P. Eleph. Gr. 17 [TM 5850] is left out of account, (2) the ὑπόμνημα with early
prescript P. NYU II 45 l. 8-16 [TM 6433] (237 / 212 / 195 BC) is dated to 237 rather
than 212 or 195 BC, (3) the ὑπόμνημα with later prescript CdE 42 p. 355-359 [TM
115834] (240 / 230 BC) is dated to 230 rather than 240 BC, and (4) the seven
ὑπομνήματα with later prescript that are addressed to Aphthonetos are dated to the
later period of his tenure as strategos, one might argue that a sudden break in the
use of the prescript took place between 237 BC (P. NYU II 45 l. 8-16 [TM 6433], with
early prescript) and 236 BC (P. Tebt. III 772 [TM 5364], with later prescript), but none
of these assumptions can be taken for granted. For now, the only safe conclusion
that can be made is that the evolution from the early to the later ὑπόμνημα took
place around the 230’s - 220’s BC. Interestingly, the latest examples of non-royal
ἐντεύξεις date from the same period, more exactly from ca. 242 BC and ca. 238-237
BC; possibly the disappearance of the non-royal ἔντευξις and the evolution of the
ὑπόμνημα were simultaneous developments.121 15 ὑπομνήματα from the 230’s - 220’s
BC that have lost (part of) their prescript cannot be safely assigned to either the
early or later ὑπομνήματα.122 Out of practical considerations, these documents are
henceforward grouped together with the later ὑπομνήματα.
The ὑπόμνημα format was not only used in Ptolemaic Egypt. First of all, the format
remained very popular in Egypt during the Roman and Early Byzantine period as
well, for both petitions and other communications.123 Second, as already mentioned
in the general introduction (p. 3), documents in ὑπόμνημα format were also used in
the other Hellenistic kingdoms. A ὑπόμνημα petition addressed to Antiochos IV is
120
Possibly, this exceptionally late use of the word ὑπόμνημα in the prescript of P. Eleph. Gr. 17 [TM 5850] is due
to interference from Demotic. Many documents from the archive of Milon relate to the financial difficulties of a
priestly family from Edfou. Several memoranda concerning these difficulties have been preserved in the
archive, in both Greek (ὑπομνήματα) and Demotic (mḳmḳ). One memorandum has even been preserved in both
languages, as a ὑπόμνημα (P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. Eleph. Dem. 10 [TM 44603]) and as a mḳmḳ (P. Bürgsch. 13 [TM
5858]): see chapter IV, p. 151-152. In contrast to the ὑπόμνημα prescript, the mḳmḳ prescript did not change at
the end of the 3rd century BC. During all periods, the mḳmḳ prescript contained the word mḳmḳ, followed by the
identification of the addressee and/or submitter, just like the early ὑπόμνημα prescripts that contain the word
ὑπόμνημα. Perhaps, the exceptionally late use of the word ὑπόμνημα in the prescript of P. Eleph. Gr. 17 [TM
5850] was inspired upon (or even translated from) Demotic.
121
See p. 21, 238-239.
122
BGU III 1007 [TM 5552] (243 / 218 BC); BGU VI 1252 [TM 7324] (ca. 225 - 150 BC); P. Enteux. B [TM 3389] (246 -
221 BC); P. Heid. Gr. VI 378 [TM 3075] (ca. 250 - 200 BC); P. Köln Gr. VI 272 [TM 3202] (ca. 250 - 200 BC); P. Köln Gr.
VIII 341 l. 1-6 [TM 41533] (232 BC); P. Köln Gr. XIII 521 [TM 219337] (ca. 225 - 150 BC); P. Petrie III 36 c [TM 7435]
(3rd century BC); PUG II 57 [TM 78854] (ca. 225 - 175 BC); PUG IV 141 [TM 703033] (ca. 225 - 150 BC); SB X 10271 Ro
[TM 5801] (231 / 206 BC); SB XII 10869 [TM 4376] (243 / 218 / 201 BC); SB XIV 11367 [TM 4233] (260 - 200 BC); SB
XVI 12468 [TM 4127] (ca. 250 - 200 BC); SB XVIII 13253 [TM 2538] (ca. 225 - 200 BC).
123
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. II’; HERRMANN, Studien zur Bodenpacht, p. 26-28;
MASCELLARI, Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano, p. 23, 144, 804-805. See also chapter V, p. 195, and chapter VI, p. 218 for
examples of ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function from Roman Egypt.
quoted by Flavius Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities (XII 258-261). Five more
ὑπόμνημα petitions are preserved on stone: two addressed to Antiochos III (SEG XLI
1574), one to Philippos V (SEG XIII 403), one to Antiochos V (SEG XLI 1556) and one
to the Attalid high priest Euthydemos (SEG XLVI 1519). All six documents use the
prescript τῶι δεῖνι ὑπόμνημα παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος. This formula also appears in one
Ptolemaic ὑπόμνημα (P. Cairo Zen. III 59489 [TM 1127]), although the word
ὑπόμνημα normally precedes the identification of the addressee and submitter in
Ptolemaic early ὑπόμνημα prescripts. The requests of the ὑπόμνημα petitions to
Antiochos III, IV and Euthydemos are also introduced by formulas that strongly
remind of Ptolemaic petitions: simple ἀξιῶ and more elaborate ἀξιῶ, ἐάν σοι
φαίνηται, [β]ασιλεῦ (...) in the petitions to Antiochos III, ἀξιοῦμεν οὖν σε τὸν
εὐεργέτην καὶ σωτῆρα προστάξαι (...) in the petition to Antiochos IV, and ἀξιῶ σ’ εἰ
φαίνετα[ι] συντάξαι (...) in the petition to Euthydemos. Just like many Ptolemaic
petitions, the ὑπόμνημα to Antiochos IV adds a rhetorical conclusion to the request,
introduced by the formula γενομένου γὰρ τούτου. In Ptolemaic Egypt, it was not
common to write ὑπομνήματα to the sovereign, however: only one ὑπόμνημα
addressed to the Ptolemaic king and queen has been preserved (P. Berl. Zill. 1 e [TM
5563]); normally, the ἔντευξις format was used for such communications.
Nevertheless, these ὑπόμνημα petitions from other Hellenistic kingdoms are closely
related to the Ptolemaic examples, and the development of this type of texts
appears to have been a pan-Hellenistic rather than exclusively Ptolemaic
phenomenon.124 The use of the ὑπόμνημα format for petitioning appears to have
been durable in the territories outside of Egypt as well: five 3rd century AD petitions
from the Roman province of Koile Syria (SB XXII 15496 [TM 23921]; SB XXII 15497
[TM 23922]; SB XXII 15498 [TM 23923]; SB XXII 15499 [TM 23924]; SB XXII 15500 [TM
23925]) and one 3rd century AD petition from the Roman province of Arabia (SB
XXVIII 17044 [TM 383642]) are formatted as ὑπομνήματα.125 They are introduced by
the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος, used in Egypt from the 230’s - 220’s BC,
which may suggest that the ὑπόμνημα prescript underwent a similar evolution
outside of Egypt, though at a later time.
124
Interestingly, the Aramaic word ‫( זכרן‬zkrn), equally meaning ‘reminder’, appears as a caption in Aramaic lists
from 5th century BC Egypt (cf. PORTEN et al., The Elephantine papyri in English, p. 148 note 1) and is also attested as a
term denoting official communications in reaction to petitions during the same period (cf. P. Berlin 13497 [TM
89413]). One wonders whether the Hellenistic ὑπόμνημα may have been inspired in some way by the Persian
period zkrn.
125
For the Roman period petitions from outside of Egypt, see MASCELLARI, Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano, p. 9, 145-
146.
1. EARLY ὑπομνήματα WITH PETITIONING FUNCTION
1.1. List
IDENTIFICATION TM DATE NOME ADDRESSEE ARCHIVE

NO.
BGU X 1905 8297 ca. 250 - 200 BC Oxyrhynchites hipparch
P. Cairo Zen. III 59368 l. 12- 1011 241 BC Arsinoites unclear Zenon
35
P. Cairo Zen. III 59475 1113 263 - 229 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
P. Cairo Zen. III 59482 1120 263 - 229 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59651 1282 263 - 229 BC Arsinoites Zenon (?) Zenon
P. Hibeh I 72 l. 4-14 8221 241 BC Herakleopolites unspecified
epistates
P. Lille Gr. I 8 3215 246 - 205 BC Arsinoites unclear
P. Lond. VII 2036 1598 263 - 229 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
P. Mich. Zen. 79 1978 263 - 229 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
P. NYU II 45 l. 8-16 6433 237 / 212 / 195 Arsinoites nomarch
BC
P. Zen. Pestm. 43 1874 259 - 229 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
PSI IV 416 2099 263 - 229 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
PSI V 529 2151 263 - 229 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
SB VI 9556 col. ii 5787 245 BC Arsinoites chrematistai
Total: 14 texts
1.2. Addressees
Most early ὑπόμνημα petitions are addressed to Zenon (8 texts). Others are
addressed to the nomarch (1 text), the hipparch (1 text), the chrematistai (1 text),
and an unspecified epistates (1 text).
1.3. Form
Structure
In their fullest form, early ὑπόμνημα petitions consist of five consecutive elements:
Their requests are regularly split up in different parts or merged with descriptive
sections, however, and one text immediately start with the request, without
preceding descriptive section. Only a minority of the texts add a rhetorical
conclusion after the request: at least three texts contain such a conclusion; at least
eight do not. Further, at least seven texts contain a closing formula, but at least four
do not.
Prescript
12 texts are introduced by the prescript ὑπόμνημα τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος and
one the other way around by ὑπόμνημα παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος τῶι δεῖνι. In PSI IV 416 [TM
2099], the ὑπόμνημα prescript appears to be confused with the ἔντευξις prescript or
the alternative epistolary prescript τῶι δεῖνι ὁ δεῖνα (χαίρειν), resulting in the
hybrid formula ὑπόμνημα τῶι δεῖνι ὁ δεῖνα (ὑπόμνημα Ζήνωνι Πέτακος ὁ αὐλητής).
Only occasionally, the function of the addressee is indicated. Zenon and some other
unknown individuals are not addressed with a title. The nomarch Nikanor (P. NYU II
45 l. 8-16 [TM 6433]), the epistates Dorion (P. Hibeh I 72 l. 4-14 [TM 8221]) and the
hipparch Philon (BGU X 1905 [TM 8297]), on the other hand, are identified with
their titles. SB VI 9556 col. ii [TM 5787], finally, is addressed “to Nikokles and [the
(other?) chrematistai]”; it is not clear whether Nikokles is the eisagogeus of the
court or one of the judges.126
126
Cf. GROTKAMP, Rechtsschutz im hellenistischen Ägypten, p. 65-66. In later ὑπομνήματα, colleges of chrematistai are
always identified by their eisagogeus: see below, p. 109 note 143.
One text is introduced by the conjunction ἐπειδή, and in one case the body of the
text immediately starts with a request. Various expressions are used at the start of
the remaining texts.
Seven texts introduce requests with καλῶς (οὖν) ποιήσεις / ἂν (οὖν) ποιήσαις, two
with δέομαι, and one with ἀξιῶ. Further, one text formulates the request in the
imperative form, without real introductory formula. Three texts add the polite
expression εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ to the request, once in combination with καλῶς οὖν
ποιήσεις, once with δέομαι, and once with a request in the imperative form. One
text adds the polite expression ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται to the request, in combination
with καλῶς ποιήσεις.
rulers, and (4) conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to do justice. In the early
ὑπόμνημα petitions, conclusions of the first and second type can be found. All
conclusions are directly attached to the request as final clauses, introduced by ἵνα
or ὅπως. SB VI 9556 col. ii [TM 5787] adds the formula ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς καταπεφευγώς to the
conclusion.
This type of conclusion appears in two texts; both make appeals to justice
(δίκαιον).127
127
One text formulates this appeal to justice in a negative way, with the verb ἀδικέω.
This type of conclusion appears in one text, submitted by a royal farmer: P. Lille Gr.
I 8 [TM 3215].
Closing formula
Five texts are closed by εὐτύχει, and one by the date.
1.4. Content
All early ὑπόμνημα petitions are dispute-related.
Topics
The early ὑπόμνημα petitions relate to various themes:
- Misconduct or negligence by authorities (1 text): P. Cairo Zen. III 59368 l. 12-35 [TM 1011].
- Detention (6 texts): P. Cairo Zen. III 59368 l. 12-35 [TM 1011]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59475 [TM 1113]; P. Cairo
Zen. III 59482 [TM 1120]; P. NYU II 45 l. 8-16 [TM 6433]; PSI IV 416 [TM 2099]; PSI V 529 [TM 2151].
- Theft (3 texts): P. Hibeh I 72 l. 4-14 [TM 8221]; P. Lille Gr. I 8 [TM 3215]; P. Mich. Zen. 79 [TM 1978].
- Damage to property (1 text): P. Cairo Zen. III 59368 l. 12-35 [TM 1011].
- Use and ownership of immovable property (1 text): SB VI 9556 col. ii [TM 5787].
- Lease and rental agreements (1 text): P. Lond. VII 2036 [TM 1598].
- Loans and property given in safekeeping (1 text): BGU X 1905 [TM 8297].
- Work agreements (1 text): P. Cairo Zen. IV 59651 [TM 1282].
- Runaway slaves (1 text): P. Zen. Pestm. 43 [TM 1874].

Requests

someone before an authority, (2) requests for examination, (3) requests to make the
other party hand over property, (4) requests for release from detention, (5) general
requests for support, and (6) some other requests that do not fit any of the above
categories and are exclusively attested in early ὑπομνήματα.
P. Cairo Zen. III 59368 l. 12-35 [TM 1011] asks to send (ἀποστέλλω) associates of the
petitioners and a representative of the other party to some authority.
P. Lond. VII 2036 [TM 1598] asks to investigate (ἐπισκέπτομαι) the petitioner’s case.
3 petitions ask to make the other party hand over money or movables: P. Cairo Zen. IV
59651 [TM 1282]; P. Lille Gr. I 8 [TM 3215]; P. Mich. Zen. 79 [TM 1978].
5 petitions make requests concerning release from detention:
- P. Cairo Zen. III 59475 [TM 1113] asks to write to a policeman who imprisoned
some associates of the petitioner in order to explain him that there has been a
misunderstanding.
- P. Cairo Zen. III 59482 [TM 1120] asks to release the petitioner’s wife.
- P. NYU II 45 l. 8-16 [TM 6433] asks to release a farmer, so that he can resume work.
- PSI IV 416 [TM 2099] asks to release the petitioner.
- PSI V 529 [TM 2151] asks to issue a loan to the petitioner, so that he can procure
his release.
SB VI 9556 col. ii [TM 5787] makes a request for justice (δίκαιον), closely related to
the concluding appeals to justice that can be found in several petitions.
6. Other requests, attested exclusively in early ὑπομνήματα
P. Zen. Pestm. 43 [TM 1874] asks to search for some runaway slaves.
2. EARLY ὑπομνήματα WITHOUT PETITIONING FUNCTION
2.1. List
P. Cairo Zen. I 708 257 BC? Alexandria (?) unclear Zenon

59048
P. Cairo Zen. I 2296 ca. 257 Alexandria (?) Zenon Zenon designated
59054 BC as ὑπόμνημα
P. Cairo Zen. II 818 256 - 255 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
59172 BC
P. Cairo Zen. II 834 255 BC Memphites (?) / Zenon
59188
P. Cairo Zen. II 863 254 BC Arsinoites / Zenon (?)
59218 l. 5-12
P. Cairo Zen. II 863 254 BC Arsinoites / Zenon (?)
59218 l. 32-57
59261
59294
P. Cairo Zen. II 941 ca. 250 Arsinoites unclear Zenon
59297 BC?
P. Cairo Zen. III 945 250 BC Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
59301
59307
59377 BC
59378 BC
59384 BC
59394 BC
P. Cairo Zen. III 1048 256 - 248 Arsinoites / Zenon
59406 BC
59408 BC
59418 BC
59422 BC
59439 BC
59445 BC
59446 BC

59457 BC
59469 BC
59484 BC
59489 BC
59493 BC
59494 BC
59499 l. 27-43
59499 l. 85-102
59507 BC
P. Cairo Zen. III 1155 263 - 229 Arsinoites / Zenon
59518 BC
59531 BC
P. Cairo Zen. IV 1200 ca. 250 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
59566 BC
59649 BC
P. Cairo Zen. IV 1281 263 - 229 Memphites (?) Zenon Zenon
59650 BC
P. Cairo Zen. IV 1284 263 - 229 Arsinoites / Zenon
59653 BC
59654 BC
59655 BC
59656 BC
59657 + P. Mich. BC
Zen. 89
P. Cairo Zen. IV 1318 263 - 229 Arsinoites unclear Zenon
59691 BC
P. Col. Zen. I 44 1761 ca. 253 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
P. Col. Zen. II 86 1799 ca. 245 - Arsinoites unclear Zenon
242 BC
P. Col. Zen. II 90 1803 ca. 244 Arsinoites unclear Zenon
BC
P. Col. Zen. II 96 1809 263 - 229 Arsinoites unclear Zenon designated
BC as ὑπόμνημα
P. Col. Zen. II 105 1818 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
P. Col. Zen. II 107 1820 263 - 229 Arsinoites travelling agent of Zenon
BC Apollonios
P. Col. Zen. II 115 2320 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
c BC
P. Congr. XV 9 78819 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon

BC
P. Eleph. Gr. 17 5850 223 BC Apollonopolites praktor of the Milon
temples praktor
P. Hamb. IV 237 43303 265 / unclear /
227 BC
P. Hibeh II 240 5200 ca. 250 - Oxyrhynchites oikonomos / Ptolemaios
245 BC toparch policeman
P. Iand. Zen. 47 110099 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
P. Iand. Zen. 48 110100 258 - 256 Arsinoites dioiketes Zenon
BC
P. Köln Gr. XII 128728 256 BC Arsinoites (?) unclear Pasis son of
476 Semtheus (?)
P. Lille Gr. I 9 3216 3rd Arsinoites oikonomos
century
BC
P. Lille Gr. I 49 l. 3250 251 BC Arsinoites unclear Diogenes
9-21 nomarch
P. Lond. VII 2017 1579 242 - 241 Arsinoites Zenon and Nestos, Zenon
BC guardians of the
submitter
P. Lond. VII 2029 1591 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon (?) Zenon
BC
P. Lond. VII 2047 1609 ca. 247 - Arsinoites unclear Zenon
243 BC
P. Lond. VII 2050 1612 263 - 229 Arsinoites unclear Zenon double
BC document
P. Lond. VII 2052 1614 245 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
P. Lond. VII 2074 1635 ca. 249 Arsinoites unclear Zenon
BC
P. Mich. Zen. 45 1945 ca. 252 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
P. Mich. Zen. 75 1974 263 - 229 Arsinoites dioiketes Zenon
l. 4-6 BC
BC
P. Mich. Zen. 86 1985 263 - 229 Arsinoites unclear Zenon
BC
BC
P. Petrie III 29 a l. 7411 242 BC Arsinoites strategos
10-17
P. Petrie III 43.6 7445 239 BC Arsinoites unclear
P. Petrie Kleon 7643 256 BC Arsinoites unclear Kleon and
20 Theodoros
P. Petrie Kleon 381302 254 BC Arsinoites unclear Kleon and designated
66 Theodoros as ὑπόμνημα
P. Petrie Kleon 7652 255 - 249 Arsinoites hypodioiketes Kleon and
68 BC Theodoros
P. Petrie Kleon 381301 ca. 260 - Arsinoites / Kleon and
78 249 BC Theodoros
P. Sorb. III 94 4359 250 - 238 Arsinoites nomarch Aristarchos

BC nomarch
P. Zen. Pestm. 33 1864 263 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon (?) Zenon
BC
P. Zen. Pestm. 52 1883 263 - 229 Arsinoites unclear Zenon
BC
PSI IV 378 2062 ca. 250 - Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
249 BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
PSI IV 409 a 2092 263 - 229 Arsinoites unclear Zenon
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
PSI V 510 l. 10-15 2133 253 BC Arsinoites unclear Zenon
BC
BC
BC
BC?
BC
BC
BC
PSI IX 1011 2448 243 - 229 Arsinoites Zenon Zenon
BC
Total: 98 texts
2.2. Addressees
Almost two thirds of the early ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function are
addressed to Zenon (63 texts). One of these texts (P. Lond. VII 2017 [TM 1579]) is
adressed to both Zenon and a certain Nestos. The latter is identified as a a judge
(κριτής) in another document (P. Lond. VII 1980 [TM 1543] = P. Lond. VII 1981 [TM
2502]), but in this text he and Zenon are approached in their private capacity as
guardians (ἐπίτροποι) of the submitter. Various state officials are addressed in the
remaining texts: the strategos (1 text), the nomarch (1 text), the dioiketes (2 texts),
the hypodioiketes (1 text), the oikonomos (2 texts; one oikonomos is also toparch),
and the praktor of the temples (1 text). Finally, P. Col. Zen. II 107 [TM 1820] is
addressed to the travelling agent of the dioiketes Apollonios.
2.3. Form
Structure
The early ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function are a freely and diversely
structured group of texts. At least 52 of them make a request, but at least 30 do not.
Requests are often split up in different parts or merged with descriptive sections. 21
texts immediately start with the request, without preceding descriptive section.
Further, at least 31 texts contain a closing formula, but at least 35 do not.
P. Lond. VII 2050 [TM 1612] contains twice the same short ὑπόμνημα, separated by a
break of ca. 7 cm. This reminds of early προσάγγελμα notifications formatted as
double documents, but in contrast to the latter, P. Lond. VII 2050 [TM 1612] does not
contain any sensitive information that had to be secured in a scriptura interior.128 On
the contrary, the ὑπόμνημα in question is of very ordinary nature: ὑπόμνημα
Πολυκλῆι. | καλῶς ἂν ποιήσαις | μνησθεὶς Εὐτύχωι | περὶ Ἁρενδώτου | τοῦ ὑπερέτου
(“Hypomnema to Polykles. Please remind Eutychos about Harendotes the
assistant”). Moreover, the papyrus does not show any traces of sealing. 129 The text
does not apear to be a draft either: the two versions are identical and both are
neatly written. In sum, no clear reason for the double redaction of this document
can be found.
128
For προσαγγέλματα in double format, see chapter VI, p. 199-200.
129
SKEAT in P. Lond. VII, p. 197.
Prescript
With one exception, all prescripts contain the word ὑπόμνημα, which is normally
followed by the identification of both the addressee (in the dative) and the
submitter (expressed by παρά + genitive): ὑπόμνημα τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος (70
texts), the other way around ὑπόμνημα παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος τῶι δεῖνι (5 texts), or
exceptionally τῶι δεῖνι ὑπόμνημα παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος (1 text: P. Cairo Zen. III 59489
[TM 1127]). In some texts, the addressee or submitter is not identified, resulting in
the prescripts ὑπόμνημα τῶι δεῖνι (7 texts) and ὑπόμνημα παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος (5 texts).
In three texts neither the addressee nor the submitter are indicated in the
prescript:
- P. Cairo Zen. II 59218 l. 5-12 [TM 863] is headed as ὑπόμνημα [τῶ]ν ετο̣ ο̣ υ ο[ἰ]κ̣έων
ὀνομ̣[άτω]ν (“hypomnema of the names of the household members of NN”),
followed by a list of people.
- P. Cairo Zen. II 59218 l. 32-57 [TM 863] is headed as ὑπόμνημα τῶ[ν] ἱερέων τοῦ
ἱεροῦ τῶν θέντων τὰ μέρη (“hypomnema of the priests of the temple who paid their
shares”), followed by a list of people.
- P. Cairo Zen. IV 59653 [TM 1284] is simply headed as ὑπόμνημα, immediately

followed by the body of the text.
In P. Petrie Kleon 66 [TM 381302], the prescript exceptionally takes the simple form
τῶι δεῖνι (Φιλέαι), but is preceded by the heading (ἔτους) λα Χοιὰχ ιγ. τὸ δοϑὲν
ὑπόμνημα Φιλέαι παρὰ Κλέωνος ἐν Κροκοδίλων πόλει. It is not clear whether this
ὑπόμνημα is an original. Maybe the heading was added when the ὑπόμνημα was
copied and the original prescript was abridged.
Only occasionally, the function of the addressee is indicated. The dioiketes

Apollonios (P. Iand. Zen. 48 [TM 110100]; P. Mich. Zen. 75 l. 4-6 [TM 1974]), his
travelling agent Aigyptos (P. Col. Zen. II 107 [TM 1820]), the hypodioiketes Diotimos
(P. Petrie Kleon 68 [TM 7652]) and several other unknown individuals who may very
well be private persons are not addressed with a title. The strategos Aphthonetos (P.
Petrie III 29 a l. 10-17 [TM 7411]), the oikonomoi Asklepiades (P. Lille Gr. I 9 [TM
3216]) and Zenodoros (P. Hibeh II 240 [TM 5200]), and the praktor of the temples
Milon (P. Eleph. Gr. 17 [TM 5850]), on the other hand, are identified with their titles.
Zenon is usually addressed without a title, but in P. Lond. VII 2017 [TM 1579], he and
Nestor are called guardians (ἐπίτροποι) of the submitter, and in P. Cairo Zen. III
59457 [TM 1096] and PSI V 528 [TM 2150], his son Kleon addresses him as father
(πατήρ).
Three texts are introduced by genitive absolute constructions, two by the

conjunction ἐπειδή, one by a date indication, and one by προσαγγέλλω. In 21 cases,
the body of the text immediately starts with a request. Various expressions are used
at the start of the remaining texts.
23 texts introduce requests with καλῶς (οὖν) ποιήσεις / ἂν (οὖν) ποιήσαις, four with
ἀξιῶ, one with δέομαι, and another one with the combined formula ἀξιῶ καὶ δέομαι.
Further, 28 texts formulate requests in the imperative form, without real
introductory formula. P. Cairo Zen. III 59408 [TM 1050] contains a direct question:
σὺ οὖν μοι τί συντάσσεις (“so what do you order me to do?”). P. Cairo Zen. I 59531
[TM 1167] introduces its request with the formula ταῦτα δ̣[ὲ γέγραφά σοι] ἵνα (“I
have written you these things so that”). Several texts add the polite expression εἴ
(σοι) δοκεῖ or ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται to the request. The expression εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ (9
texts) appears 6 times with requests in the imperative form, twice with καλῶς (οὖν)
ποιήσεις / ἂν (οὖν) ποιήσαις, and once with ἀξιῶ. The expression ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται
(4 texts, 5 attestations) appears 3 times with καλῶς (οὖν) ποιήσεις / ἂν (οὖν)
ποιήσαις, and twice with requests in the imperative form.
Closing formula
20 texts are closed by εὐτύχει (in one case followed by the date), six by ἔρρωσο (in
three cases followed by the date), and four by the date alone. P. Cairo Zen. II 59294
[TM 938] is closed by the expression [date] παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος, making this the only
ὑπόμνημα in which the submitter is identified in the closing formula.
2.4. Content
The early ὑπόμνημα was used for a wide variety of purposes. 130 Most early
ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function are communications addressed to some
authority or exceptionally a private person. A couple of early ὑπομνήματα without
addressee rather appear to be notes for personal use, however; except for the word
“ὑπόμνημα” they have little in common with the remaining Ptolemaic
ὑπομνήματα. 131 At least 52 texts contain requests, but these requests seem so
ordinary that the documents cannot qualify as petitions. Regularly, reports and
requests concerning various matters are combined in a single communication.
Some of the texts consist completely or for the largest part of lists and accounts.132
Due to the sheer variety of the topics touched upon in these texts, it does not seem
desirable to offer a lengthy discussion of their content here. Most are connected to
daily business concerns. One text with request and another without can serve as
examples:
- P. Cairo Zen. III 59307 [TM 951] (250 BC), with request
ὑπόμνημα Ζή|νωνι παρὰ Διο|νυσίου. ἐγὼ μὲν | πεπόρευμαι | εἰς τὰς

Κοίτας | ὅπως ἂν ⟦ ̣ ̣ ̣⟧ | ὑπὲρ Πτολε|μαίου ἀναδέ|ξωμαι τὰς ν (δραχμάς),
| καθά μοι συν|έταξας τὰς | ε ἡμέρας αἰ|τήσασθαι ἐ|ν αἷς δοθήσε|ται.
καλῶς οὖν | ποιήσεις δοὺς | τῶι ἀδελφῶι | τῶι φέροντί σοι | τὸ
ὑπόμνημα | τρία σκαφεῖα, | ὅπως ὁ κλῆρος | ποτίζηται | καὶ μὴ
ὑστερῶμεν. | (ἔτους) λϛ, | Μεσορὴ ιϛ.
“Hypomnema to Zenon from Dionysios. I have gone to Koitai in order to

guarantee the payment of the 50 drachmai on behalf of Ptolemaios, in
accordance with your order to me to ask for the five days within which
it will be paid. Please give three mattocks to my brother who brings you
this hypomnema, so that the kleros can be watered and we are not too
late. Year 36, Mesore 16.”
130
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 165-166, 180; ROSTOVTZEFF in P. Tebt. III, p. 68.
131
BICKERMANN (‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 165-165) distinguishes between these “ganz
formlose Zettel” and the real “Urhypomnemata”.
132
P. Cairo Zen. I 59054 [TM 2296]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59172 [TM 818]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59218 l. 5-12 [TM 863]; P. Cairo
Zen. II 59218 l. 32-57 [TM 863]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59261 [TM 905]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59297 [TM 941]; P. Cairo Zen. III
59394 [TM 1037]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59406 [TM 1048]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59518 [TM 1155]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59566 [TM
1200]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59655 [TM 1286]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59691 [TM 1318]; P. Mich. Zen. 67 [TM 1967]; PSI IV 409 a
[TM 2092]; PSI V 527 [TM 2149].
- P. Cairo Zen. III 59518 [TM 1155] (263 - 229 BC), without request
ὑπόμνημα παρ[ὰ] Τ̣ιμά̣ρ|χου ὧν χρεία εἰς τὴν κατα|γωγὴν τῶν λίθων |

σφυρίδας μ | κίστας μεγάλας β | ἀλαβαστροθήκην α | θυλάκιο̣ν\α/ β |
σφηκώματος μν(ᾶς) β | ψιάθους κ.
“Hypomnema from Timarchos of the things required for the transport

of the stones: 40 baskets, two big chests, one box for alabaster, two
bags, two minai of cord and 20 sacks.”
3. LATER ὑπομνήματα WITH PETITIONING FUNCTION
3.1. List
BGU III 1007 5552 243 / 218 unclear unclear designated

BC as
ὑπόμνημα;
possibly
early
ὑπόμνημα
BGU III 1012 5553 170 BC Arsinoites village epistates designated
as ὑπόμνημα
BGU IV 1187 4524 ca. 49 - 48 Herakleo- strategos / officials of the
BC polites controller of Herakleo-
revenues polites (?)
BGU IV 1190 4525 80 - 30 BC Herakleo- grammateus of the officials of the
polites army Herakleo-
polites
BGU VI 1244 4405 225 BC Herakleo- oikonomos designated
polites as ὑπόμνημα
BGU VI 1247 4538 137 BC Omboi till strategos family archive
Philai from Syene
BGU VI 1252 7324 ca. 225 - Arsinoites unclear possibly
150 BC early
ὑπόμνημα
BGU VI 1253 7325 2nd century unclear phylakites designated
BC as
προσάγγελμα
BGU VI 1254 4542 154 / 143 Arsinoites komogrammateus
BC
BGU VI 1255 7326 1st century Memphites village epistates
BC
BGU VI 1256 4543 147 - 146 / Arsinoites komogrammateus designated
136 - 135 as ὑπόμνημα
BC
BGU VI 1470 61247 3rd / 2nd Omboi till strategos short

Ro l. 1-6 century BC Philai excerpt in
collection of
various
texts;
written on
ostrakon
BGU VIII 1747 4829 63 BC Herakleo- dioiketes officials of the
l. 18-28 polites Herakleo-
polites
BGU VIII 1756 4838 58 BC Herakleo- dioiketes officials of the designated
l. 8-18 polites Herakleo- as ὑπόμνημα
polites
polites
polites
BGU VIII 1772 4853 61 - 60 / 57 Herakleo- dioiketes officials of the designated
l. 30-44 - 56 BC polites Herakleo- as ὑπόμνημα
polites
BGU VIII 1779 4860 51 - 50 BC Herakleo- strategos / officials of the
polites controller of Herakleo-
revenues (?) polites
BGU VIII 1780 4861 ca. 56 BC Herakleo- strategos / officials of the
l. 9-29 polites controller of Herakleo-
revenues polites
BGU VIII 1796 4876 64 - 44 BC Herakleo- komogrammateus officials of the
l. 3-6 polites Herakleo-
polites
BGU VIII 1796 4876 64 - 44 BC Herakleo- komogrammateus officials of the designated
polites
BGU VIII 1813 4892 ca. 62 - 61 Herakleo- strategos / officials of the
BC polites controller of Herakleo-
revenues polites
revenues polites
BGU VIII 1815 4894 60 BC Herakleo- strategos / officials of the
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
BGU VIII 1819 4898 60 - 59 BC? Herakleo- strategos officials of the

polites Herakleo-
polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
BGU VIII 1825 4904 ca. 61 - 60 / Herakleo- strategos / officials of the designated
53 - 52 BC polites controller of Herakleo- as ὑπόμνημα
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
BGU VIII 1828 4907 52 - 51 BC Herakleo- strategos / officials of the designated
polites controller of Herakleo- as ὑπόμνημα
revenues polites
BGU VIII 1829 4908 51 BC Herakleo- strategos / officials of the designated
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
BGU VIII 1835 4914 50 - 49 BC? Herakleo- strategos / officials of the
revenues polites
revenues polites

revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
BGU VIII 1847 4926 51 - 50 / 50 Herakleo- strategos / officials of the designated
- 49 BC polites controller of Herakleo- as ὑπόμνημα
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
revenues polites
BGU VIII 1854 4933 74 - 73 / 45 Herakleo- strategos / officials of the
- 44 BC polites controller of Herakleo-
revenues polites
BGU VIII 1855 4934 64 - 44 BC Herakleo- strategos / Officials of the

a polites controller of Herakleo- as ὑπόμνημα
Ro col. i polites controller of Herakleo-
BGU VIII 1867 4946 64 - 44 BC Herakleo- unclear officials of the
polites Herakleo-
polites
BGU X 1907 4970 ca. 177 BC Peri Thebas strategos
BGU X 1909 8294 ca. 100 - 75 Memphites strategos
BC (?)
BGU XIV 2373 3993 144 - 143 Arsinoites strategos
BC
BGU XIV 2375 3995 ca. 62 - 50 Herakleo- strategos /
BC polites controller of
revenues
BGU XVIII 69805 87 - 86 BC Herakleo- basilikos Peteimouthes
2731 polites grammateus and Harchebis
BGU XX 2845 316208 51 - 49 BC? Herakleo- strategos officials of the
polites Herakleo-
polites
BGU XX 2847 4844 49 BC Herakleo- strategos officials of the
polites Herakleo-
polites
Chrest. Wilck. 376 ca. 123 BC Pathyrites hypomnemato-
11 b graphos
Chrest. Wilck. 41800 223 BC Arsinoites unclear designated

304 l. 7-16 as ὑπόμνημα
CPR XXVIII 117591 191 BC Herakleo- subordinate of the Demetrios
11 polites (?) dioiketes subordinate of
the dioiketes
O. Mus. Hist. 58182 189 - 100 Peri Thebas nome epistates written on
nat. Lyon inv. BC ostrakon
807 + O.
Ashm. Shelt.
42
P. Amh. Gr. II 8670 ca. 157 BC Arsinoites epimeletes + temple of
34 a + b Ro basilikos Soknopaiou
grammateus (?) Nesos
P. Amh. Gr. II 8672 ca. 157 BC Arsinoites epimeletes + temple of
34 d basilikos Soknopaiou
grammateus (?) Nesos
P. Amh. Gr. II 8621 132 BC Arsinoites strategos / temple of designated
35 controller of Soknopaiou as ὑπόμνημα
revenues Nesos
P. Athen. 7 44007 1st century unclear unclear
BC
P. Bingen 35 44500 144 - 141 Arsinoites grammateus of the lawsuit texts
BC katoikoi hippeis from
Oxyrhyncha
P. Bingen 44 78024 124 - 120 Arsinoites strategos same
BC petition as
SB XIV 11273
P. Coll. 5038 177 BC Arsinoites unclear designated
Youtie I 12 as ὑπόμνημα
P. Coll. 5041 109 BC? Arsinoites strategos
Youtie I 16
P. Dion. 10 3093 109 BC Hermo- archiphylakites (?) + Dionysios son designated
polites phylakitai of Kephalas as
P. Dion. 11 3094 108 BC Hermo- strategos Dionysios son
polites of Kephalas
P. Dion. 12 l. 3095 108 BC Hermo- basilikoi Dionysios son designated
6-21 polites grammateis of Kephalas as ὑπόμνημα
P. Diosk. 1 44717 154 BC? Herakleo- hegemon / Dioskourides designated
polites phrourarch phrourarch as
P. Diosk. 2 44718 154 BC Herakleo- phrourarch Dioskourides
polites phrourarch
P. Diosk. 3 44719 153 BC Herakleo- hegemon / Dioskourides
polites phrourarch phrourarch
P. Diosk. 4 44720 153 BC Herakleo- hegemon / Dioskourides
P. Diosk. 5 44721 146 BC? Herakleo- hegemon / Dioskourides
P. Diosk. 6 l. 44722 146 BC Herakleo- hegemon / Dioskourides
1-6 polites phrourarch phrourarch
P. Diosk. 6 l. 44722 146 BC Herakleo- strategos Dioskourides designated
7-50 polites phrourarch as ὑπόμνημα
P. Diosk. 7 44723 ca. 153 BC? Herakleo- hegemon / Dioskourides
P. Diosk. 8 43832 ca. 175 - Herakleo- hegemon / Dioskourides

125 BC polites phrourarch phrourarch
P. Diosk. 11 44726 ca. 175 - Herakleo- phrourarch (?) Dioskourides
125 BC polites phrourarch (?)
P. Diosk. 12 44727 ca. 175 - Herakleo- phrourarch Dioskourides
125 BC polites phrourarch
P. Dryton 31 286 140 - 130 Pathyrites oikonomos Dryton
BC
P. Dryton 32 287 137 - 130 Pathyrites epistrategos Dryton
BC
P. Dryton 33 253 136 BC Pathyrites epistrategos Dryton same
petition as P.
Dryton 33
bis
P. Dryton 33 252 136 BC Pathyrites epistrategos Dryton same
bis petition as P.
Dryton 33
P. Dryton 34 284 115 - 110 Pathyrites epistrategos Dryton
BC
P. Duke inv. 131855 ca. 129 BC? Herakleo- strategos / nomarch Ariston
325 polites (?) strategos
P. Duke inv. 131856 ca. 129 BC? Herakleo- strategos Ariston
P. Duke inv. 131860 ca. 129 BC? Herakleo- strategos / nomarch Ariston
P. Duke inv. 58468 2nd century Herakleo- village epistates designated
360 BC? polites (?) as ὑπόμνημα
P. Duke inv. 58467 196 - 195 Arsinoites epimeletes
676 BC
P. Eleph. Gr. 5852 ca. 222 BC Apollono- unclear Milon praktor
19 polites
P. Eleph. Gr. 44603 223 BC Apollono- praktor of the Milon praktor same
27 a + P. polites temples petition as P.
Eleph. Dem. Bürgsch. 13
10
P. Enteux. B 3389 246 - 221 Arsinoites unclear possibly
BC early
ὑπόμνημα
P. Erasm. I 2 5049 ca. 152 BC Arsinoites strategos sitologoi of designated
Oxyrhyncha (?) as ὑπόμνημα
P. Erasm. I 3 5050 166 BC? Arsinoites strategos
P. Erasm. I 4 44709 ca. 175 - Arsinoites village epistates
125 BC
P. Erasm. I 5 5051 184 / 160 Arsinoites unclear
BC
P. Erbstreit 5882 134 BC Pathyrites epistrategos Erbstreit same
13 d l. 54-58 petition as P.
Erbstreit 16
l. 11-27
P. Erbstreit 156 134 BC Pathyrites epistrategos Erbstreit same

16 l. 11-27 petition as P.
Erbstreit 13
d l. 54-58;
designated
P. Fordham 129892 156 - Oxyrhyn- archidikastes /
inv. 5 133 chites superintendent of
125?
the chrematistai
and other courts
P. Fouad 16 5093 68 BC Oxyrhyn- strategos
chites
P. Gen. III 126 43084 170 - 156 Herakleo- chrematistai designated
l. 21-46 BC? polites as ὑπόμνημα
P. Gen. III 128 43079 163 - 156 Herakleo- dioiketes
BC? polites
P. Giss. Univ. 44587 ca. 144 BC Arsinoites village epistates (?) village
I1 epistatai
Euhemeria (?)
P. Giss. Univ. 8175 ca. 132 - Arsinoites village epistates village
I2 131 BC epistatai
Euhemeria
P. Giss. Univ. 42854 ca. 132 - Arsinoites village epistates village
I3 131 BC epistatai
Euhemeria
P. Giss. Univ. 8335 132 - 131 Arsinoites logeutes village
I5 BC epistatai
Euhemeria
P. Giss. Univ. 8176 ca. 132 - Arsinoites village epistates / village
I6 131 BC archiphylakites epistatai
Euhemeria
P. Giss. Univ. 8177 ca. 132 - Arsinoites village epistates / village
I7 131 BC archiphylakites epistatai
Euhemeria
P. Giss. Univ. 43259 131 BC Arsinoites village epistates / village
I8 archiphylakites + epistatai
phylakitai Euhemeria
P. Giss. Univ. 42855 131 BC Arsinoites village epistates / village
I9 archiphylakites epistatai
Euhemeria
CPJ IV 577 851556 147 - 146 / Herakleo- politarch + archonts Jewish
136 - 135 polites of the Jewish politeuma
BC politeuma
P. Grad. 18 5128 246 - 221 unclear unclear
BC
P. Grenf. I 11 247 181 BC Pathyrites unclear Dryton (?)
+ P. Heid. Gr.
1288 col. i l. 1
- col. ii l. 5
P. Grenf. I 38 262 170 BC Pathyrites strategos
133
DUTTENHÖFER (in P. Yale IV 143 forthcoming) proposes to redate this text to the early Roman period on
account of some formal features, but the case is hard to decide. To the arguments adduced by CLAYTOR (‘P.
Fordham inv. 5’) in favour of the Ptolemaic date, one should add that this would be the only Roman petition
introduced by the formula ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό (cf. chapter V, p. 175 with note 249).
P. Grenf. I 42 266 169 - 168 Peri Thebas strategos

BC
P. Gurob 5 5868 ca. 215 BC Arsinoites komarch
P. Hal. Kurth 383461 2nd century unclear unclear
inv. II.b 1 BC
P. Hal. Kurth 383463 2nd century Peri Thebas unclear
inv. II.b 3 Vo BC
P. Hamb. I 92 5133 180 - 145 Herakleo- oikonomos
l. 8-18 BC polites
P. Hamb. III 78269 3rd century Herakleo- toparch
202 BC polites
P. Hamb. IV 43304 159 BC Herakleo- head of the syntaxis designated
238 polites (?) / hegemon as ὑπόμνημα
P. Heid. Gr. 3075 ca. 250 - Arsinoites unclear possibly
VI 378 200 BC early
ὑπόμνημα
P. Heid. Gr. 3076 204 BC Arsinoites oikonomos
VI 379
P. Heid. Gr. 3078 208 - 207 / Arsinoites unclear
VI 381 191 - 190
BC
P. Heid. Gr. 3079 ca. 158 BC Arsinoites epimeletes
VI 382
P. Heid. Gr. 47299 ca. 201 / Herakleo- unclear
VIII 421 177 BC polites
P. Heid. Gr. IX 89277 158 BC Herakleo- basilikos Dionysios designated
422 polites grammateus basilikos as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
P. Heid. Gr. IX 89278 158 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus Dionysios designated
423 l. 4-15 basilikos as
grammateus προσάγγελμα
P. Heid. Gr. IX 89286 158 BC Herakleo- basilikos Dionysios designated
431 polites grammateus basilikos as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
P. Heid. Gr. IX 89287 161 - 155 Herakleo- basilikos Dionysios
432 BC polites grammateus (?) basilikos
grammateus
P. Heid. Gr. IX 89288 161 - 155 Herakleo- basilikos Dionysios designated
433 BC polites grammateus (?) basilikos as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
P. Hels. I 1 5138 194 - 180 Arsinoites unclear designated
P. Hels. I 2 5139 ca. 195 - Arsinoites archiphylakites
192 BC
P. Hels. I 9 5144 163 BC Herakleo- oikonomos oikonomoi of
polites Herakleo-
polites
P. Hels. I 31 5166 160 BC Herakleo- oikonomos oikonomoi of
polites Herakleo-
polites
P. Iand. VII 5228 83 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus
134
P. Iand. inv. 218351 ca. 150 - Arsinoites unclear designated
398 100 BC as
P. Köln Gr. III 3174 244 - 242 / Arsinoites meris epistates

140 219 - 217
BC
P. Köln Gr. V 2482 209 BC Memphites archiphylakites
216
P. Köln Gr. V 3184 145 - 143 Herakleo- dioiketes Philo
223 BC? polites
P. Köln Gr. VI 2486 213 BC Arsinoites oikonomos Apollonios designated
261 Ro oikonomos as ὑπόμνημα
P. Köln Gr. VI 3202 ca. 250 - Arsinoites unclear designated
272 200 BC (?) 134
as mḳmḳ;
possibly
early
ὑπόμνημα
P. Köln Gr. X 47274 142 BC Herakleo- strategos
413 polites
P. Köln Gr. XI 112487 219 / 202 Herakleo- grammateus of the
452 BC polites (?) machimoi
P. Köln Gr. XI 112490 ca. 134 BC Arsinoites strategos / designated
455 controller of as ὑπόμνημα
revenues
P. Köln Gr. 219336 ca. 150 - Herakleo- strategos (?)
XIII 520 100 BC polites
P. Köln Gr. 219337 ca. 225 - unclear strategos (?) possibly
XIII 521 150 BC early
ὑπόμνημα
P. Lips. II 125 44410 173 BC? Arsinoites strategos
P. Lips. II 126 78441 2nd / 1st unclear unclear
century BC
P. Lond. II 220 5888 ca. 133 BC Panopolites unclear
Ro col. i l. 1- (?)
16
P. Louvre II 88764 157 BC unclear
98 unclear
P. Med. Bar. 4149 ca. 142 - Arsinoites head of the syntaxis lawsuit texts
inv. 2 Ro 141 BC from
Oxyrhyncha
P. Med. Bar. 56433 140 BC Arsinoites head of the syntaxis lawsuit texts
inv. 3 Ro from
Oxyrhyncha
P. Med. Bar. 45138 139 BC Arsinoites village epistatai lawsuit texts
inv. 8 Ro from
Oxyrhyncha
P. Merton I 5 5238 149 - 137 Thinites strategos
BC
P. Mich. III 8337 ca. 169 BC Arsinoites village epistates
173
P. Mich. XV 47503 2nd / 1st Arsinoites village epistates / designated
688 century BC archiphylakites as ὑπόμνημα
134
The Greek P. Köln VI 272 [TM 3202] is designated as mḳmḳ in its Demotic subscription, but this word was used
as direct Demotic equivalent of the Greek word ὑπόμνημα. Cf. BAETENS, ‘Some corrections to Ptolemaic petitions’,
p. 284-285.
P. Mich. XVIII 8767 ca. 194 BC Arsinoites epimeletes Menches

773 goldsmith
P. Mich. XVIII 8768 ca. 194 - Arsinoites epimeletes Menches
774 193 BC goldsmith
P. Mich. XVIII 8772 ca. 193 - Arsinoites dioiketes Peteminis designated
778 192 BC topo- as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
P. Mich. XVIII 8773 ca. 193 - Arsinoites unclear Peteminis
779 192 BC topo-
grammateus
P. Mil. Vogl. 5247 119 BC? Arsinoites strategos
III 128
P. Monts. 219243 2nd century Arsinoites unclear
Roca IV 66 BC
P. Münch. III 5249 ca. 155 BC Herakleo- unclear designated
50 polites as
P. Oxf. 1 42959 ca. 200 - unclear unclear
175 BC
P. Oxy. XII 43902 1st century Oxyrhyn- unclear
1465 BC chites
P. Petrie III 7406 222 - 221 Arsinoites strategos Diophanes
28 a BC strategos
P. Petrie III 7410 224 - 218 Arsinoites strategos Diophanes
28 e Ro BC strategos (?)
P. Petrie III 7412 244 - 222 Arsinoites strategos Aphthonetos
29 b BC strategos
29 c BC strategos
29 d BC strategos
29 e BC strategos
29 f BC strategos
29 g BC strategos
29 h BC strategos
P. Petrie III 7420 222 - 205 Arsinoites strategos
30 BC
P. Petrie III 7421 198 BC Arsinoites strategos / hipparch
31
P. Petrie III 7422 221 - 205 Arsinoites oikonomos designated
32 a BC as ὑπόμνημα
P. Petrie III 7424 220 BC Arsinoites oikonomos
32 c
P. Petrie III 7425 216 - 213 Arsinoites oikonomos
32 d BC
P. Petrie III 4440 221 - 220 Arsinoites oikonomos
32 e BC
32 f Ro

32 f Vo col. i
l. 1 - col. ii l. 6
32 f Vo col. ii
l. 7-13
P. Petrie III 7427 217 BC Arsinoites unclear
32 g Ro (a)
32 g Ro (b)
P. Petrie III 7430 198 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus
34 b
P. Petrie III 7701 218 - 217 Arsinoites epimeletes
36 a Ro BC
P. Petrie III 7433 ca. 218 BC Arsinoites epimeletes
36 a Vo
P. Petrie III 7434 ca. 218 BC? Arsinoites epimeletes
36 b col. i-ii
P. Petrie III 7435 3rd century Arsinoites epimeletes (?) possibly
36 c BC early
ὑπόμνημα
P. Petrie III 7436 197 BC Arsinoites epimeletes
36 d
P. Petrie III 7529 3rd century Arsinoites unclear
73 BC
P. Polit. Iud. 1 44617 135 BC Herakleo- politarch + Jewish
polites politeuma politeuma
P. Polit. Iud. 2 44618 ca. 135 BC Herakleo- politarch + Jewish
polites politeuma politeuma
P. Polit. Iud. 3 44619 140 BC? Herakleo- archonts of the Jewish
polites Jewish politeuma politeuma
P. Polit. Iud. 4 44620 134 BC Herakleo- archonts of the Jewish
P. Polit. Iud. 5 44621 135 - 134 Herakleo- archonts of the Jewish
BC polites Jewish politeuma politeuma
P. Polit. Iud. 8 44624 133 BC Oxyrhyn- archonts of the Jewish
chites Jewish politeuma politeuma
P. Polit. Iud. 44626 138 - 137 Herakleo- archonts of the Jewish
10 BC polites Jewish politeuma politeuma
P. Polit. Iud. 44628 135 BC Herakleo- archonts of the Jewish
12 polites Jewish politeuma politeuma
P. Polit. Iud. 44629 135 BC Herakleo- archonts of the Jewish
13 polites Jewish politeuma politeuma
P. Polit. Iud. 44630 135 / 134 Herakleo- archonts of the Jewish

P. Prag. II 124 8823 143 - 124 Arsinoites strategos
BC
P. Princ. III 5908 55 - 54 / 4 - Arsinoites strategos
117 3 BC
P. Rainer 8604 ca. 100 - 50 Phthem- strategos Apollonios
Cent. 50 BC phouth strategos
P. Rainer 5268 76 BC? Phthem- strategos Apollonios
Cent. 53 phouth strategos
P. Rainer 5269 ca. 76 BC? Phthem- strategos Apollonios
Cent. 55 phouth strategos
P. Ryl. Gr. II 5285 ca. 125 - unclear unclear
66 a l. 3-9 100 BC
P. Ryl. Gr. II 5286 89 BC Hermo- police epistates
68 polites
P. Ryl. Gr. II 5287 34 BC Arsinoites unclear designated
69 as ὑπόμνημα
P. Ryl. Gr. II 78743 1st century unclear unclear
256 BC
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 5297 83 BC Arsinoites strategos nekrotaphoi of
577 Hawara 2
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 5298 159 - 158 Arsinoites epimeletes
578 BC
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 44149 1st century Oxyrhyn- strategos
579 BC chites (?)
P. Sal. Gr. 2 495485 ca. 200 - Arsinoites unclear designated
150 BC as
P. Strasb. Gr. 3918 86 BC? Arsinoites laarch designated
II 91 as ὑπόμνημα
P. Strasb. Gr. 3927 2nd century unclear unclear
II 100 BC
P. Strasb. Gr. 3946 ca. 150 - unclear unclear
VI 564 100 BC
P. Strasb. Gr. 3964 1st century unclear unclear
VIII 702 BC
P. Strasb. Gr. 3972 ca. 167 - Herakleo- strategos
VIII 781 160 BC polites
P. Tarich. 1 316241 189 BC Arsinoites chrematistai taricheutai of
Tanis
P. Tarich. 2 316242 189 BC Arsinoites πρὸς τῶι taricheutai of
παρασφραγισμῶι Tanis
P. Tarich. 3 316243 189 BC Arsinoites superintendent of taricheutai of
the chrematistai Tanis
P. Tarich. 4 a 316244 188 BC Arsinoites chrematistai taricheutai of same

Tanis petition as P.
Tarich. 4 b
P. Tarich. 4 b 316245 188 BC Arsinoites chrematistai taricheutai of same
Tarich. 4 a
P. Tarich. 5 g 316246 189 BC? Arsinoites unclear taricheutai of designated
col. i l. 1 - col. Tanis as ὑπόμνημα
ii l. 18
P. Tarich. 5 g 316246 189 BC? Arsinoites epimeletes taricheutai of
col. ii l. 19 - Tanis
col. iii l. 16
P. Tarich. 6 a 316247 186 BC Arsinoites dioiketes taricheutai of same
Tarich. 6 b
P. Tarich. 6 b 316248 186 BC Arsinoites dioiketes taricheutai of same
Tarich. 6 a
P. Tarich. 7 316249 185 BC Arsinoites chrematistai taricheutai of
Tanis
P. Tarich. 8 316250 185 - 184 Arsinoites chrematistai taricheutai of
BC Tanis
P. Tarich. 9 a 316251 185 - 184 Arsinoites chrematistai taricheutai of same
BC Tanis petition as P.
Tarich. 9 b
P. Tarich. 9 b 316252 185 - 184 Arsinoites chrematistai taricheutai of same
BC Tanis petition as P.
Tarich. 9 a
P. Tarich. 11 316254 184 BC Arsinoites basilikos taricheutai of same
grammateus Tanis petition as P.
Tarich. 12 l.
1-5
P. Tarich. 12 316255 184 BC Arsinoites basilikos taricheutai of same
l. 1-5 grammateus Tanis petition as P.
Tarich. 11
P. Tarich. 13 316256 188 - 187 Arsinoites strategos (?) taricheutai of
BC? Tanis
P. TCD Pap. 380607 202 BC Arsinoites epimeletes
Gr. env. 127
P. Tebt. I 29 78767 ca. 110 BC Arsinoites chrematistai Menches
komo-
grammateus
P. Tebt. I 30 l. 3666 116 BC Arsinoites heads of the Menches designated
15-21 syntaxis komo- as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
P. Tebt. I 31 l. 3667 112 BC Arsinoites head of the syntaxis Menches designated
15-22 komo- as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
P. Tebt. I 38 l. 3674 113 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus Menches designated
10-28 komo- as
P. Tebt. I 39 3675 ca. 114 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus Menches designated
komo- as
P. Tebt. I 40 3676 117 BC Arsinoites basilikos Menches

grammateus komo-
grammateus
P. Tebt. I 41 78772 105 - 90 BC Arsinoites archiphylakites chief designated
constables of as ὑπόμνημα
Kerkeosiris
P. Tebt. I 42 3678 ca. 114 BC Arsinoites strategos
P. Tebt. I 44 3680 114 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus Menches
komo-
grammateus
P. Tebt. I 45 3681 113 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus Menches designated
komo- as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
grammateus
grammateus
P. Tebt. I 48 3684 ca. 118 - Arsinoites komogrammateus Menches
112 BC komo-
grammateus
grammateus
P. Tebt. I 50 3686 112 - 111 Arsinoites komogrammateus Menches designated
BC komo- as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
P. Tebt. I 51 3687 ca. 113 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus Menches
komo-
grammateus
P. Tebt. I 52 3688 ca. 114 BC Arsinoites village epistates village
epistatai of
Kerkeosiris
grammateus
P. Tebt. I 54 3690 86 BC Arsinoites hipparch
P. Tebt. I 134 3770 ca. 125 - Arsinoites strategos of the city Menches
120 BC komo-
grammateus
(?)
P. Tebt. I 138 3773 ca. 125 - Arsinoites unclear chief designated
100 BC constables of as
Kerkeosiris προσάγγελμα
P. Tebt. I 183 3816 ca. 125 - Arsinoites komomisthotes
100 BC
P. Tebt. I 264 3893 ca. 125 - Arsinoites unclear Menches
100 BC komo-
grammateus
(?)
P. Tebt. II 283 42986 93 / 60 BC Arsinoites village epistates designated
P. Tebt. III 5364 236 BC Arsinoites nomarch
772
P. Tebt. III 7850 221 - 175 Arsinoites dorea manager

773 Ro Greek BC
P. Tebt. III 5366 ca. 183 - Arsinoites unclear
775 182 BC
P. Tebt. III 7851 179 - 177 Arsinoites oikonomos Adamas
776 BC sitologos
(related)
777 175 BC
P. Tebt. III 5367 ca. 175 BC Arsinoites strategos
779
P. Tebt. III 5368 171 BC Arsinoites strategos
780 Ro col. i
P. Tebt. III 5368 171 BC Arsinoites strategos
780 Ro col. ii
781
P. Tebt. III 5370 ca. 153 BC Arsinoites epimeletes
782
784 175 BC
785
P. Tebt. III 5372 ca. 138 BC Arsinoites strategos administration
786 of Oxyrhyncha
787
P. Tebt. III 5374 143 BC Arsinoites strategos administration
788 of Oxyrhyncha
P. Tebt. III 5375 ca. 140 BC Arsinoites unclear administration
789 of Oxyrhyncha
P. Tebt. III 5376 127 - 124 Arsinoites strategos
790 BC
P. Tebt. III 5377 ca. 116 BC Arsinoites epistates /
791 grammateus of the
katoikoi hippeis /
strategos
P. Tebt. III 5378 ca. 113 BC Arsinoites controller of administration designated
792 revenues of Oxyrhyncha as ὑπόμνημα
P. Tebt. III 5379 183 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus designated
793 col. i l. as
22-30 προσάγγελμα
P. Tebt. III 5379 183 BC Arsinoites village epistates designated
793 col. iii l. as ὑπόμνημα
19 - col. iv l. 6
793 col. iv l. as
793 col. vi l. as
P. Tebt. III 5379 183 BC Arsinoites unclear designated
793 col. viii l. as

793 col. viii l. as
793 col. viii l. as
793 col. viii l. as
793 col. xi l. as
11 - col. xii l. προσάγγελμα
4
P. Tebt. III 5379 183 BC Arsinoites unclear
793 col. xii l.
22-26
P. Tebt. III 5381 185 BC Arsinoites archiphylakites
796
P. Tebt. III 7856 2nd century Arsinoites archiphylakites +
797 BC phylakitai
P. Tebt. III 7857 2nd century Arsinoites komogrammateus administration
798 BC of Oxyrhyncha
P. Tebt. III 5382 154 / 143 Arsinoites unclear designated
799 BC as
P. Tebt. III 5383 153 / 142 Arsinoites komogrammateus designated
P. Tebt. III 5385 135 BC Arsinoites hipparch / village
802 epistates
P. Tebt. III 5386 143 - 138 Arsinoites hipparch / village
803 BC epistates
P. Tebt. III 5387 112 BC Arsinoites village epistates
804
P. Tebt. III 5388 ca. 113 BC Arsinoites komarch administration
805 of Oxyrhyncha
P. Tebt. III 5391 151 / 140 Arsinoites unclear designated
P. Tebt. III 5445 ca. 175 BC Arsinoites epistrategos
895 l. 1-59
P. Tebt. III 5460 ca. 156 BC Arsinoites unclear
934 l. 7-26
P. Tebt. III 5468 ca. 145 - Arsinoites head of the syntaxis
952 144 BC
P. Tebt. III 5470 181 / 157 Arsinoites unclear
954 BC
958 as
P. Tebt. III 5474 140 BC Arsinoites strategos / administration
959 controller of of Oxyrhyncha
revenues
P. Tebt. III 7988 2nd century Arsinoites unclear
960 BC
P. Tebt. III 5475 150 / 139 Arsinoites unclear
961 l. 1-12 BC

962 100 BC
963 175 BC
P. Tebt. III 5476 141 BC Arsinoites διατεταγμένος ἐπὶ administration
964 τῶν τόπων of Oxyrhyncha
P. Tebt. III 5477 170 - 116 Arsinoites komarch administration
965 BC of Oxyrhyncha
P. Tebt. III 5478 123 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus
966
P. Tebt. III 7991 ca. 125 - Arsinoites village epistates
967 100 BC
P. Tebt. IV 3761 114 - 113 Arsinoites komogrammateus Menches
1094 BC komo-
grammateus
P. Tebt. IV 3762 113 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus Menches designated
1095 komo- as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
P. Tebt. IV 3763 113 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus Menches designated
1096 komo- as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
P. Tebt. IV 3907 ca. 119 - Arsinoites unclear Menches designated
1097 110 BC komo- as ὑπόμνημα
grammateus
P. Tebt. IV 3908 ca. 114 BC Arsinoites unclear Menches
1098 komo-
grammateus
P. Tebt. Pad. 412064 94 - 93 BC Arsinoites laarch designated
10 as ὑπόμνημα
P. Tebt. Pad. 412069 ca. 100 - 75 Arsinoites laarch (?)
15 BC
P. Texas inv. 131719 184 / 160 Arsinoites unclear
6 BC
P. Thrace 1 97786 2nd century Arsinoites grammateus of the
BC (?) syntaxeis
P. Tor. Amen. 3597 119 - 117 Peri Thebas nome epistates Amenothes son
7 BC of Horos
P. Tor. Amen. 3598 116 BC Peri Thebas nome epistates / Amenothes son
8 controller of of Horos
revenues
P. Tor. 3591 112 - 111 Peri Thebas nome epistates Osoroeris son
Choach. 3 BC of Horos
P. Tor. 3593 111 BC Peri Thebas epistrategos Osoroeris son
Choach. 4 of Horos
P. Tor. 3594 110 BC Peri Thebas epistrategos Osoroeris son same
Choach. 5 a of Horos petition as P.
Tor. Choach.
5 b;
designated
P. Tor. 3595 110 BC Peri Thebas epistrategos Osoroeris son same
Choach. 5 b of Horos petition as P.
Tor. Choach.
5a
P. Tor. 3561 119 BC Peri Thebas hipparch / nome Osoroeris son

Choach. 11 epistates of Horos
P. Tor. 3562 119 BC Peri Thebas hipparch / nome Osoroeris son designated
Choach. 11 epistates of Horos as ὑπόμνημα
bis l. 8-33
P. Tor. 3563 117 BC Peri Thebas strategos / nomarch Osoroeris son designated
Choach. 12 of Horos as ὑπόμνημα
col. i l. 14 -
col. iii l. 16
P. Turku 1 8087 151 BC Arsinoites dioiketes
P. Turku 2 + 41560 146 BC? Arsinoites epimeletes (?)
P. Turku 3 Ro
P. Turku 36 41501 ca. 175 - Arsinoites epimeletes
125 BC
P. UB Trier S 111679 136 BC Herakleo- basilikos
188-44 polites grammateus
P. Vindob. G 703255 190 BC Herakleo- subordinate of the Demetrios
56637 polites dioiketes subordinate of
the dioiketes
P. Vindob. G 703254 192 - 191 Herakleo- subordinate of the Demetrios
56639 BC polites dioiketes subordinate of
the dioiketes
P. Würzb. 4 5532 ca. 142 BC Arsinoites head of the syntaxis lawsuit texts
from
Oxyrhyncha
(related)
P. Würzb. 5 5533 31 BC Oxyrhyn- strategos
chites
P. Yale I 53 41798 ca. 175 - Arsinoites komarch
125 BC
P. Yale IV 138 873593 137 BC Herakleo- epistrategos Euphranor
polites strategos
polites strategos
polites strategos
polites strategos
polites strategos
polites strategos
polites strategos
polites strategos
polites strategos
P. Yale IV 147 873587 137 BC Herakleo- epistrategos Euphranor designated
polites strategos as ὑπόμνημα
polites strategos
polites strategos
P. Yale IV 151 873591 137 BC? Herakleo- epistrategos Euphranor

polites strategos
PSI III 166 8354 118 BC Thinites hipparch / strategos Ammonios
strategos
strategos
strategos
strategos
strategos
PSI III 171 5548 ca. 118 BC Thinites hipparch / strategos Ammonios
strategos
strategos
PSI III 173 43330 ca. 118 BC Thinites hipparch / strategos Ammonios
(?) strategos
PSI V 542 2164 ca. 193 - Arsinoites unclear
167 BC
PSI VII 815 5565 153 / 142 Antaio- nome epistates
BC polites
PSI VII 816 44190 153 - 142 Antaio- unclear
BC? polites
PSI VIII 949 41455 1st century Arsinoites strategos
BC (?)
PSI XIII 1316 5582 125 BC unclear unclear designated
PSI XIII 1317 5583 118 BC? Thinites hipparch / strategos Ammonios
strategos
PSI XV 1512 44214 ca. 150 - 50 unclear unclear designated
PSI XV 1514 8071 89 - 53 BC unclear unclear
PSI Com. XI 4 220370 ca. 132 - Arsinoites village epistates / village
131 BC archiphylakites epistatai
Euhemeria
PUG II 57 78854 ca. 225 - Arsinoites unclear possibly
175 BC early
ὑπόμνημα
PUG III 112 43240 ca. 175 - Arsinoites komogrammateus
125 BC (?)
PUG IV 141 703033 ca. 225 - Arsinoites unclear possibly
150 BC early
ὑπόμνημα
SB III 6002 5645 2nd century Arsinoites unclear
BC?
SB IV 7351 5688 200 / 176 Arsinoites komogrammateus
BC
SB V 8009 6293 ca. 150 - unclear phrourarch
100 BC
SB V 8033 5706 182 BC Peri Thebas strategos
SB VI 9068 6195 ca. 225 - Memphites archiphylakites
200 BC
SB VI 9108 5728 173 - 169 Aphrodito- strategos
BC polites
SB VI 9123 6196 ca. 150 - Arsinoites unclear

100 BC
SB VI 9420 5774 ca. 129 BC Peri Thebas unclear
SB VI 9537 6229 2nd century Arsinoites archiphylakites +
BC phylakitai
SB VIII 9674 5946 ca. 131 BC Arsinoites village epistates / village
archiphylakites epistatai
Euhemeria
SB VIII 9790 5954 ca. 75 - 25 Herakleo- strategos
BC polites
SB VIII 9792 5794 162 BC Hermo- police epistates
polites
SB X 10225 5913 2nd century Lykopolites unclear
BC
SB X 10253 5798 131 BC Arsinoites unclear village designated
epistatai as
Euhemeria προσάγγελμα
SB X 10271 5801 231 / 206 Arsinoites unclear designated
Ro BC as
ὑπόμνημα;
possibly
early
ὑπόμνημα
SB X 10273 5802 235 / 210 Arsinoites unspecified
BC epistates
SB XII 10770 4345 2nd century Memphites unclear designated
BC (?) as ὑπόμνημα
SB XII 10869 4376 243 / 218 / Arsinoites basilikos possibly
201 BC grammateus (?) early
ὑπόμνημα
SB XIV 11273 4206 124 - 120 Arsinoites strategos same
BC petition as P.
Bingen 44
SB XIV 11367 4233 260 - 200 Arsinoites dioiketes possibly
BC early
ὑπόμνημα
SB XIV 11626 4255 125 BC Lykopolites nome epistates designated
SB XIV 11745 4259 ca. 225 - Arsinoites unclear
Ro 200 BC
SB XIV 12163 4317 ca. 175 - Arsinoites head of the syntaxis Pankrates head
125 BC (?) of the syntaxis
SB XVI 12305 4078 ca. 152 BC Arsinoites strategos
SB XVI 12468 4127 ca. 250 - Arsinoites unclear possibly
200 BC early
ὑπόμνημα
SB XVI 12524 14608 39 BC? Arsinoites village epistates / designated
archiphylakites as ὑπόμνημα
SB XVI 12552 4137 ca. 225 - Arsinoites (village?) epistates
200 BC (?)
SB XVI 12720 4148 142 BC Arsinoites head of the syntaxis lawsuit texts
from
Oxyrhyncha
SB XVI 12721 4149 ca. 142 - Arsinoites epistates / lawsuit texts

141 BC grammateus of the from
katoikoi hippeis Oxyrhyncha
SB XVIII 2519 ca. 143 - Arsinoites logeutes lawsuit texts
13092 142 BC from
Oxyrhyncha
SB XVIII 2520 143 - 141 Arsinoites strategos lawsuit texts
13093 BC? from
Oxyrhyncha
SB XVIII 2522 142 - 141 Arsinoites head of the syntaxis lawsuit texts same
13095 BC? from petition as
Oxyrhyncha SB XVIII
13096
SB XVIII 2523 142 - 141 Arsinoites head of the syntaxis lawsuit texts same
13096 BC? from petition as
Oxyrhyncha SB XVIII
13095
SB XVIII 2524 139 BC Arsinoites unclear lawsuit texts
13097 from
Oxyrhyncha
SB XVIII 2526 232 - 226 Arsinoites oikonomos
13099 BC
SB XVIII 2538 ca. 225 - Arsinoites unclear possibly
13253 200 BC early
ὑπόμνημα
SB XVIII 2598 ca. 175 - Arsinoites komogrammateus designated
13735 125 BC as ὑπόμνημα
SB XX 14083 7873 ca. 184 / Arsinoites basilikos
183 - 160 / grammateus
159 BC?
SB XX 14420 7897 2nd century Arsinoites head of the syntaxis Pankrates head
BC of the syntaxis
(?)
SB XX 14592 8068 76 BC Panopolites nome epistates
SB XX 14999 8121 217 BC Arsinoites oikonomos
SB XX 15068 8124 217 BC Arsinoites dioiketes
SB XXII 15206 43138 ca. 225 - Arsinoites oikonomos
200 BC
SB XXII 15463 79044 138 - 117 unclear unclear
BC
SB XXII 15536 8819 197 - 196 Arsinoites dioiketes
BC?
SB XXII 15542 41498 ca. 175 - Arsinoites village epistates designated
125 BC as
SB XXII 15559 8792 ca. 140 BC Arsinoites strategos designated
SB XXII 15762 43001 210 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus
SB XXIV 3077 209 / 192 Arsinoites unclear
15938 BC
SB XXIV 8808 202 BC Arsinoites strategos
16285
SB XXIV 8810 199 BC Arsinoites strategos / hipparch
16295
SB XXVI 41487 ca. 140 - Arsinoites strategos Petosiris son of same

16742 139 BC Petosiris, petition as
falcon breeder SB XXVI
16743
SB XXVI 41488 ca. 140 - Arsinoites strategos Petosiris son of same
16743 139 BC Petosiris, petition as
falcon breeder SB XXVI
16742
SB XXVI 41489 ca. 140 - Arsinoites strategos / Petosiris son of
16744 139 BC controller of Petosiris,
revenues falcon breeder
SB XXVI 44707 ca. 200 - Arsinoites unclear
16800 150 BC
SB XXVI 44708 147 - 146 / Herakleo- archiphylakites
16801 136 - 135 polites
BC
SB XXVIII 112672 154 - 143 Lykopolites epimeletes
16851 BC
SB XXVIII 5132 167 BC Herakleo- strategos
16855 polites
SB XXVIII 133400 ca. 175 - unclear unclear
16874 125 BC
SB XXVIII 133350 ca. 200 - Arsinoites unclear
17157 175 BC
SB XXVIII 44526 213 BC Arsinoites basilikos
17175 grammateus
SB XXVIII 47350 143 - 142 Arsinoites archiphylakites +
17251 BC phylakitai
UPZ I 2 3393 163 BC Memphites strategos katochoi of the
Serapeion
UPZ I 5 3396 ca. 163 BC Memphites strategos katochoi of the
Serapeion
Serapeion
Serapeion
UPZ I 12 3403 158 - 157 Memphites strategos katochoi of the same
BC Serapeion petition as
UPZ I 13
UPZ I 13 3404 158 - 157 Memphites strategos katochoi of the same
UPZ I 12
UPZ I 17 3408 163 BC Memphites hypodioiketes katochoi of the
Serapeion
Serapeion
Serapeion
UPZ I 32 3423 ca. 162 BC Memphites epimeletes katochoi of the
Serapeion
UPZ I 33 3424 161 BC Memphites hypodioiketes katochoi of the same
Serapeion petition as
UPZ I 34,
UPZ I 35 and
UPZ I 36

UPZ I 33,
UPZ I 35 and
UPZ I 36
UPZ I 33,
UPZ I 34 and
UPZ I 36
UPZ I 33,
UPZ I 34 and
UPZ I 35
UPZ I 40
UPZ I 39
UPZ I 43 3434 162 - 161 Memphites hypodioiketes katochoi of the same
UPZ I 44 and
UPZ I 45
UPZ I 43 and
UPZ I 45
UPZ I 43 and
UPZ I 44
UPZ I 47,
UPZ I 48,
UPZ I 49 and
UPZ I 50
UPZ I 46,
UPZ I 48,
UPZ I 49 and
UPZ I 50
UPZ I 46,
UPZ I 47,
UPZ I 49 and
UPZ I 50

UPZ I 46,
UPZ I 47,
UPZ I 48 and
UPZ I 50
UPZ I 46,
UPZ I 47,
UPZ I 48 and
UPZ I 49
Serapeion
UPZ I 53
UPZ I 52
UPZ I 58 Vo l. 3449 163 - 162 Memphites hypodioiketes katochoi of the
1-4 BC Serapeion
UPZ I 122 3514 ca. 157 BC Memphites strategos
UPZ I 123 3515 ca. 157 - Memphites strategos
156 BC
UPZ I 124 3516 175 / 165 / Memphites strategos
112 BC
UPZ II 187 3589 127 - 126 Peri Thebas hipparch / Osoroeris son
BC archiphylakites of Horos
Total: 511 texts
3.2. Addressees
Various authorities are addressed in the later ὑπόμνμα petitions:135
- officials belonging to the civil administration: the epistrategos (23 texts), the
strategos (155 texts), the strategos of the city (1 text),136 the nome epistates (9 texts),
the nomarch (4 texts), the basilikos grammateus (15 texts), the meris epistates (1
text), the toparch (1 text), the village epistates (26 texts), the komarch (4 texts), the
komogrammateus (33 texts), and the komomisthotes (1 text);
- officials belonging to the financial administration: the dioiketes (14 texts), the
hypodioiketes (21 texts), the subordinate of the dioiketes (3 texts), the epimeletes
135
The order of the following overview is roughly based upon that of the Prosopographia Ptolemaica.
136
For a recent discussion of this title, see LANCIERS, ‘Antaios, a Ptolemaic Strategos of Alexandria’.
(19 texts), the controller of revenues (63 texts), the oikonomos (19 texts), the
logeutes (2 texts), and the praktor of the temples (1 text);
- military officials: the laarch (3 texts), the phrourarch (13 texts), the hegemon (10
texts), the hipparch (17 texts), the epistates of the katoikoi hippeis (2 texts), the
head of the syntaxis (12 texts), the grammateus of the army (1 text), the
grammateus of the katoikoi hippeis (3 texts), the grammateus of the machimoi (1
text), and the grammateus of the syntaxeis (1 text);137
- police officials: the police epistates (2 texts), the archiphylakites (19 texts), and the
phylakites (6 texts);
- officials belonging to the judiciary: the archidikastes / superintendent of the

chrematistai and other courts (1 text), the superintendent of the chrematistai (1
text), and the chrematistai (9 texts);
- other authorities: the leaders of the Jewish politeuma (17 texts), the
hypomnematographos (1 text), the πρὸς τῶι παρασφραγισμῶι (1 text), 138 the
διατεταγμένος ἐπὶ τῶν τόπων (1 text),139 the manager of a dorea (1 text),140 and an
unspecified epistates (1 text).
Several of the addressed authorities exercise multiple offices: strategos and

controller of revenues (61 texts), hipparch and strategos (11 texts), hegemon and
phrourarch (9 texts), village epistates and archiphylakites (8 texts),141 strategos and
nomarch (3 texts), hipparch and nome epistates (2 texts), hipparch and village
epistates (2 texts), hipparch and archiphylakites (1 text), epistates and grammateus
of the katoikoi hippeis and strategos (1 text), epistates and grammateus of the
katoikoi hippeis (1 text), nome epistates and controller of revenues (1 text), and
head of the syntaxis and hegemon (1 text).
Further, some of the texts are addressed to multiple persons. Usually, they form a
college: the leaders of the Jewish politeuma (17 texts),142 the chrematistai (9 texts),143
the archiphylakites and ordinary phylakitai of a certain village (5 texts), the
137
Possibly, the grammateus of the syntaxeis (γραμματεύς συντάξεων) is the same official as the head of the
syntaxis (πρὸς τῆι συντάξει): IOANNIDOU, ‘Petition to an archisomatophylax’, p. 34.
138
For this rare title, possible designating a high-ranking police official, see ARMONI in P. Tarich., p. 14-15.
139
The precise responsibilities of this official are not clear.
140
This manager, a certain Noumenios, is explicitly addressed as the πρὸς τῆι δωρεᾶι (P. Tebt. III 773 Ro Greek
[TM 7850] l. 1). Zenon, by contrast, is never identified with such a title in the ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα
addressed to him.
141
For the combination of these two offices, see BAUSCHATZ & SOSIN, ‘Stealing Livestock at Oxyrhyncha’, p. 167.
142
Three different types of address can be found in these petitions, which were used interchangeably (cf. KRUSE,
‘Ethnic Koina and Politeumata in Ptolemaic Egypt’, p. 279-280): addresses to the archontes of the politeuma (14
texts), addresses to the politarch and the politeuma (2 texts), and addresses to the politarch and the archontes
of the politeuma (1 text).
143
The chrematistai are always identified according to their eisagogeus in this context: τοῖς (τὰ βασιλικὰ καὶ
προσοδικὰ κρίνουσι) χρηματισταῖς ὧν εἰσαγωγεὺς ὁ δεῖνα.
epistatai of a certain village (1 text), two heads of the syntaxis (1 text),144 and two
basilikoi grammateis (1 text).145 Two closely related petitions from the archive of the
temple of Soknopaiou Nesos (P. Amh. II 34 a + b Ro [TM 8670] and d [TM 8672]) may
possibly have been addressed to two individual officials at the same time (the
epimeletes and the basilikos grammateus), but this is not certain.146
3.3. Form
Structure147
In their fullest form, later ὑπόμνημα petitions consist of five consecutive elements:
Not all texts add a rhetorical conclusion after the request: at least 192 texts contain
such a conclusion, but at least 91 do not. Some texts show other deviations from this
model. P. Tebt. III 772 [TM 5364] contains two request sections: one introduced by
καλῶς οὖν ποήσεις (l. 4) and another introduced by ἀξιῶ (l. 11). The unusual
structure of this document might be linked to its early date: it is one of the very
earliest ὑπομνήματα of the later type, from 236 BC; in ὑπομνήματα of the early type,
requests are regularly split up in different parts. P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM 5038]
contains two concluding sections, but is a draft. Further, two texts immediately
start with the request, without preceding descriptive section, and eight texts do not
contain a closing formula.
144
The petition to these two heads of the syntaxis (P. Tebt. I 30 l. 15-21 [TM 3666]) is preceded by a forwarding
letter, sent by the two of them together (P. Tebt. I 30 l. 10-14 [TM 3666]): clearly, these officials closely
collaborated.
145
The petition to these two basilikoi grammateis (P. Dion. 12 l. 6-21 [TM 3095]) is preceded by a forwarding
letter, sent by the two of them together (P. Dion. 12 l. 1-5 [TM 3095]): clearly, these scribes closely collaborated.
146
The prescript of the first petition is partially lost, and the prescript of the second completely. GRENFELL and
HUNT supplemented the prescript of P. Amh. II 34 a + b Ro [TM 8670] as [Ζωπύρωι ἐπι]μελητῆι [καὶ
Πετεαρψενήσει βασιλικῶι γραμματεῖ παρὰ Μαρεπάθι]ος (...), because two other petitions about the same dispute
mention judicial proceedings before these two officials and an ἐμφανισμός addressed to both of them (P. Amh. II
33 [TM 8669] l. 7-8, and P. Amh. II 34 c [TM 8671] l. 8-9). They supposed that P. Amh. II 34 d [TM 8672] was
probably submitted to the same officials. ARMONI (in P. Heid. IX, p. 18) expressed her doubt about this
interpretation, because petitions are normally not addressed to multiple individuals (unless they are part of
some college). There appears to be a lot of space in the lacuna between [Ζωπύρωι ἐπι]μελητῆι [ and παρὰ
Μαρεπάθι]ος in P. Amh. II 34 a + b Ro [TM 8670], however. Moreover, P. Amh. II 34 d [TM 8672] is certainly
addressed to multiple persons (see ὑμῶν in l. 7). Still, this last petition might also be addressed to the royal
couple or the chrematistai (cf. P. Amh. II 33 [TM 8669] l. 9-10), rather than to the epimeletes and basilikos
grammateus.
147
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’.
Prescript
These texts are typically introduced by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος (401
texts), in four cases preceded by the date, and in one case by the date and the place.
Five texts use abridged prescripts: in P. Tebt. I 38 l. 10-28 [TM 3674], BGU VIII 1747 l.
18-28 [TM 4829], BGU VIII 1779 [TM 4860] and BGU VIII 1780 [TM 4861], the
identification of the addressee is omitted (παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος); and in P. Petrie III 36 a
Vo [TM 7433], the identification of the submitter is omitted (τῶι δεῖνι). In all other
respects, these documents bear a striking similarity to petitions with the regular
later ὑπόμνημα prescript. BGU VIII 1747 l. 18-28 [TM 4829], BGU VIII 1779 [TM 4860]
and BGU VIII 1780 [TM 4861] belong to the archive of the officials of the
Herakleopolites, in which many similar petitions with regular ὑπόμνημα prescript
can be found.
The function of the addressee is indicated in all but four texts: P. Eleph. Gr. 19 [TM
5852] (addressed to a certain Apollodoros), P. Mich. XVIII 779 [TM 8773] (addressed
to a certain Ornymenes), P. Petrie III 73 [TM 7259] (addressed to a certain
Dionysodoros), and SB XIV 11745 Ro [TM 4259] (addressed to a certain Theodoros).
The other way around, the prescripts of BGU VI 1255 [TM 7326], BGU VIII 1819 [TM
4898] and BGU VIII 1838 [TM 4917] identify the addressee with a title (in the first
case village epistates, in the second and third case strategos), but without a name.
Colleges of archontes of the Jewish politeuma, of chrematistai (except for the
eisagogeus) and of phylakitai are also only identified by title.
Regularly, honorific aulic titles are added to the identification of high-ranking

addressees in these prescripts (200 texts). 148 The following titles can be found:
συγγενής (81 texts), τῶν πρώτων φίλων (35 texts; in one case τῶν πρώτων φίλων
καὶ ἀρχιθυρωρῶν), διάδοχος or τῶν διαδόχων (33 texts), ἀρχισωματοφύλαξ or τῶν
ἀρχισωματοφυλάκων (27 texts), τῶν φίλων (13 texts; in 2 cases τῶν φίλων καὶ
εἰσαγγελέων), τῶν ἰσοτίμων τοῖς πρώτοις φίλοις (5 texts), τῶν ὁμοτίμων τοῖς
συγγενέσιν (4 texts) and τῶν σωματοφυλάκων (2 texts). Honorific aulic titulature
was introduced in Egypt by Ptolemaios V Epiphanes around 197 - 194 BC. 149
Correspondingly, the earliest later ὑπομνήματα that identify their addressee with
such titles are P. Tarich. 2 [TM 316242] and P. Tarich. 3 [TM 316243], which date
from 189 BC.
148
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 63. Officials belonging to the civil
administration: epistrategos, strategos, nome epistates, nomarch; officials belonging to the financial
administration: dioiketes, hypodioiketes, epimeletes, controller of revenues, oikonomos; military officials:
laarch, phrourach, hipparch, epistates of the katoikoi hippeis, head of the syntaxis, grammateus of the army,
grammateus of the katoikoi hippeis, grammateus of the syntaxeis; other officials: hypomnematographos,
superintendent of the chrematistai, police epistates, πρὸς τῶι παρασφραγισμῶι.
149
MOOREN, La hiérarchie de cour ptolémaïque, p. 50-51. The chronology by MOOREN was recently contested by ABD
EL-FATTAH, ABD EL-MAKSOUD & CARREZ-MARATRAY (‘Deux inscriptions grecques du Boubasteion d’Alexandrie’), but
found new support in an article by LANCIERS (‘The Emergence of the Ptolemaic Honorific Court Titles’).
Introduction of the body of the text150
90 texts are introduced by genitive absolute constructions, 80 by date indications,

61 by formulas with ἀδικέω, 18 by the conjunctions ἐπεί and ἐπειδή, and five by the
verb προσαγγέλλω. In two cases (P. Petrie III 29 g [TM 7417] and P. Petrie III 29 h
[TM 7418]), the body of the text immediately starts with a request. Various
expressions are used at the start of the remaining documents.
In the dispute-related petitions, formulas of the type ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό (45 texts) and
related participle constructions with ἀδικούμενος / ἠδικημένος (15 texts) are rather
common. Many of the participle constructions are strengthened by intensifiers like
οὐ μετρίως or καθʼ ὑπερβολήν or integrated in even more elaborate expressions like
ἠ̣δικημένος οὐ μετ̣ρίως καὶ κινδυνεύων τῶν ἰδίων στερηθῆναι ὑπό (P. Tor. Choach.
11 [TM 3561]). BGU VIII 1831 [TM 4910] is introduced by a unique variant of these
formulas: πολ̣λ̣ῶ̣ν̣ καὶ μ̣εγ̣ ̣αί̣ ̣λων ἀδικημάτων συντετελεσμένων εἴς με ὑπό.
Introduction of the request151
243 texts introduce requests with ἀξιῶ, 24 with formulas of the type ἐπιδίδωμί σοι
(τὸ ὑπόμνημα / προσάγγελμα) ὅπως, 17 with combined formulas of the type ἀξιῶ
(προσ)δεόμενος, ten with formulas of the type προσαγγέλλω σοι ὅπως,152 eight with
καλῶς (οὖν) ποιήσεις / ἂν (οὖν) ποιήσαις, six with δέομαι (mostly drafts), and two
with combined formulas of the type ἐπιδίδωμί σοι τὸ ὑπόμνημα, ἀξιῶ (P. Tebt. II 283
[TM 42986] and P. Tebt. Pad. 10 [TM 412064]). 153 A couple of rare request
introductions only appear in a single text: ἀξιοῦμέν σε, ἐπειδὴ (...), καλῶς ποιήσεις
(P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. Eleph. Dem. 10 [TM 44603]), δεόμεθα καὶ ἀξιοῦμεν (BGU VIII
1847 [TM 4926]), ἐμφανίζω οὖν σοι ὅπως̣ (P. Köln Gr. V 216 [TM 2482]),
ἐπαιτούμε[θά] σ̣ε̣ αὐτόθι (P. Rainer Cent. 51 [TM 8605]), and the expression
συνέστησεν ἐπιδιδό(ναι) τὸ ὑπόμνημα ὅπως (P. Ryl. II 69 [TM 5287]: “he [= the
150
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, p. 116; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel
periodo tolemaico’, p. 68-70.
151
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, p. 116-119; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari
nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 70-74.
152
In P. Tebt. III 960 [TM 7988] and SB X 10253 [TM 5798], the request is introduced by προσαγγέλλομέν σοι /
ὑμῖν without ὅπως, followed by participles in the accusative and infinitives expressing the actions requested
from the addressees.
153
In P. Tebt. Pad. 10 [TM 412064], part of this formula is in the lacuna: διὸ ἐπιδίδωμί σοι τὸ ὑ[πόμνημα, ἀξιῶ],
ἐὰν φα̣ίνηται. But the parallel with P. Tebt. II 283 [TM 42986], the size of the lacuna and and the polite formula
ἐὰν φα̣ίνηται that is added to the request introduction make this supplement plausible. In P. Tebt. III 799 [TM
5382] a similar formula has been read, just before the fragmentary papyrus breaks off: ἐπιδίδ[ω]μ̣[ι ο]ὖ̣ν̣ σοι τὸ
προσ[άγγελμα καὶ ἀξιῶ -ca.?- ]. In this case, it seems more logical to simply supplement ἐπιδίδ[ω]μ̣[ι ο]ὖ̣ν̣ σοι τὸ
προσ[άγγελμα ὅπως -ca.?- ].
accused] obliged (us) to submit this petition so that...”). Finally, one text (P. Diosk. 5
[TM 44721]) formulates the request in the imperative form, without real
introductory formula. 147 texts add the polite expression ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται to the
request (149 attestations): 127 times in combination with ἀξιῶ, 8 times with
formulas of the type ἀξιῶ (προσ)δεόμενος, twice with καλῶς (οὖν) ποιήσεις, twice
with ἐπιδίδωμί σοι τὸ ὑπόμνημα, ἀξιῶ, once with δεόμεθα καὶ ἀξιοῦμεν, once with
ἐπαιτούμε[θά] σ̣ε̣ αὐτόθι, once with a request in the imperative form, and 7 times in
a more fragmentary context.
Rhetorical conclusion154
rulers, and (4) conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to do justice. In the later
ὑπόμνημα petitions, conclusions of all four types can be found, as well as some
conclusions that do not fit any of these four categories. Almost all conclusions are
introduced in one of the two following ways. First, they can form separate
sentences, introduced by the formula τούτου (γὰρ / δὲ) γενομένου or τούτων (γὰρ /
δὲ) γενομένων (105 texts). Second, they can be directly attached to the request as
final clauses, introduced by ἵνα / ὅπως (76 texts). Only nine conclusions are
introduced in other ways. The conclusions of SB XXIV 15938 [TM 3077] and six texts
from the archive of the katochoi of the Serapeion (UPZ I 24 [TM 3415], UPZ I 34 [TM
3425], UPZ I 35 [TM 3426], UPZ I 36 [TM 3427], UPZ I 52 [TM 3443] and UPZ I 53 [TM
3444]) are expressed as a wish, formulated in a separate sentence with a verb in the
optative. In UPZ I 46 [TM 3437] and UPZ I 50 [TM 3441], which also belong to the
archive of the katochoi, the conclusion is constructed with a future indicative,
preceded by a participle: κομισάμεναι γὰρ ταύτας λειτουργήσομεν διὰ σὲ
πρ[ο]θύμως ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι (UPZ I 46 [TM 3437] l. 23-24: “when we have received this,
we will zealously perform our duties in the temple, thanks to you”).155
This type of conclusion appears in 139 texts:
154
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, p. 137-140; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari
155
UPZ I 50 [TM 3441] uses a very similar formula.
- 45 texts contain appeals to the addressee’s assistance (ἀντίληψις);156
- 30 texts contain appeals to justice (δίκαιον / δίκαια);157
- 5 texts contain appeals to the addressee’s considerateness (εὐγνώμονα);
- 1 text contains an appeal to the addressee’s beneficence (εὐεργεσία);
- 1 text contains an appeal to the addressee’s hatred of evil (μισοπονηρία);
- 1 text contains an appeal to the addressee’s care (πολυωρία);
- 1 text contains an appeal to the addressee’s deliverance (σωτηρία);
This type of conclusion appears in 25 texts. Most of these petitions come from royal
farmers.
3. Conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to tend to the cult of the gods and
rulers
This type of conclusion appears in eight texts. Unsurprisingly, all of these petitions
come from priests and other persons connected to temples.
This type of conclusion appears in three texts.
5. Other rhetorical conclusions
Eight texts contain conclusions that do not fit any of the above four categories,
referring to the divine and royal favour of the addressee.158 Seven of them come
from the archive of the katochoi of the Serapeion: UPZ I 24 [TM 3415], UPZ I 32 [TM
3423], UPZ I 34 [TM 3425], UPZ I 35 [TM 3426], UPZ I 36 [TM 3427], UPZ I 52 [TM
3443] and UPZ I 53 [TM 3444]. A similar conclusion is used in SB XXIV 15938 [TM
3077], a petition by a priest.
156
BGU VIII 1889 [TM 4968] exceptionally contains an appeal to the addressee’s μετάληψις rather than
ἀντίληψις.
157
Three texts formulate this appeal to justice in a negative way, with the verb ἀδικέω. BGU VIII 1824 [TM 4903]
exceptionally contains an appeal to the addressee’s δικαιοσύνη.
158
For this kind of formulas, clearly of Egyptian origin, see CLARYSSE & SIJPESTEIJN, ‘A Letter from a Dancer of
Boubastis’, p. 59-61. See also chapter I, p. 41 for royal ἐντεύξεις with similar conclusions.
Closing formula159
Most documents (225 texts) are closed by εὐτύχει (in 12 cases followed and in two
cases preceded by the date). Seven are closed by ἔρρωσο (in five cases followed by
the date), three by διευτύχει, and 12 by the date alone.
3.4. Content160
Most later ὑπόμνημα petitions are dispute-related (440 out of 511 texts), but some
are not (14 texts). 57 texts are so fragmentary or incompletely published that their
context cannot be adequately assessed.
Topics
- Violence (65 texts): BGU III 1007 [TM 5552]; BGU VI 1244 [TM 4405]; BGU VI 1247 [TM 4538]; BGU VI 1253
[TM 7325]; BGU VIII 1780 [TM 4861]; BGU VIII 1796 l. 7-12 [TM 4876]; BGU VIII 1816 [TM 4895]; BGU VIII 1834 [TM
4913]; BGU VIII 1855 [TM 4934]; BGU XX 2847 [TM 4844] (?); P. Bingen 44 [TM 78024]; P. Coll. Youtie I 16 [TM
5041]; P. Diosk. 1 [TM 44717]; P. Diosk. 6 l. 1-6 [TM 44722]; P. Diosk. 6 l. 7-50 [TM 44722]; P. Diosk. 7 [TM 44723]; P.
Giss. Univ. I 9 [TM 42855]; P. Grenf. I 38 [TM 262]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 422 [TM 89277]; P. Hels. I 2 [TM 5139]; P. Köln Gr.
III 140 [TM 3174]; P. Köln Gr. XI 455 [TM 112490]; P. Köln Gr. XIII 520 [TM 219336]; P. Med. Bar. inv. 8 Ro [TM
45138]; P. Mich. XV 688 [TM 47503]; P. Mich. XVIII 773 [TM 8767]; P. Mich. XVIII 774 [TM 8768]; P. Petrie III 28 e
Ro [TM 7410]; P. Petrie III 32 c [TM 7424]; P. Petrie III 32 g Ro (a) [TM 7427]; P. Polit. Iud. 1 [TM 44617]; P. Ryl. Gr.
II 68 [TM 5286]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 91 [TM 3918]; P. Tebt. I 39 [TM 3675]; P. Tebt. I 44 [TM 3680]; P. Tebt. I 48 [TM
3684]; P. Tebt. I 138 [TM 3773]; P. Tebt. II 283 [TM 42986]; P. Tebt. III 789 [TM 5375] (?); P. Tebt. III 793 col. xi l. 11 -
col. xii l. 4 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 797 [TM 7856]; P. Tebt. III 798 [TM 7857]; P. Tebt. III 800 [TM 5383]; P. Tebt. III
802 [TM 5385]; P. Tebt. III 958 [TM 5473]; P. Tebt. III 960 [TM 7988]; P. Tebt. Pad. 10 [TM 412064]; PSI III 167 [TM
5544]; PSI III 168 [TM 5545]; PSI V 542 [TM 2164]; PSI VII 816 [TM 44190]; SB VI 9068 [TM 6195]; SB VI 9537 [TM
6229]; SB X 10253 [TM 5798] (?); SB X 10271 Ro [TM 5801]; SB XIV 11273 [TM 4206]; SB XX 14999 [TM 8121]; SB
XXII 15542 [TM 41498]; SB XXVI 16800 [TM 44707]; UPZ I 5 [TM 3396]; UPZ I 7 [TM 3398]; UPZ I 8 [TM 3399]; UPZ I
12 [TM 3403]; UPZ I 13 [TM 3404]; UPZ I 122 [TM 3514].
159
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, p. 140; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel
periodo tolemaico’, p. 105.
160
- Misconduct or negligence by authorities (102 texts): BGU III 1012 [TM 5553]; BGU VIII 1779
[TM 4860]; BGU VIII 1821 [TM 4900]; BGU VIII 1828 [TM 4907]; BGU VIII 1829 [TM 4908]; BGU VIII 1836 [TM 4915];
BGU VIII 1842 [TM 4921] (?); BGU VIII 1846 [TM 4925]; BGU VIII 1850 [TM 4929]; BGU VIII 1851 [TM 4930]; BGU
VIII 1855 [TM 4934]; BGU XIV 2375 [TM 3995]; BGU XX 2845 [TM 316208]; CPR XXVIII 11 [TM 117591]; P. Amh. Gr.
II 34 a + b Ro [TM 8670]; P. Amh. Gr. II 34 d [TM 8672]; P. Amh. Gr. II 35 [TM 8621]; P. Coll. Youtie I 16 [TM 5041]; P.
Diosk. 2 [TM 44718]; P. Diosk. 4 [TM 44720]; P. Eleph. Gr. 19 [TM 5852]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 382 [TM 3079]; P. Heid. Gr.
IX 431 [TM 89286]; P. Med. Bar. inv. 2 Ro [TM 4149]; P. Med. Bar. inv. 3 Ro [TM 56433]; P. Mich. XVIII 773 [TM
8767]; P. Mich. XVIII 774 [TM 8768]; P. Mich. XVIII 778 [TM 8772]; P. Mich. XVIII 779 [TM 8773]; P. Oxf. 1 [TM
42959]; P. Petrie III 32 a [TM 7422]; P. Petrie III 32 f Ro [TM 7426]; P. Petrie III 32 f Vo col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 6 [TM
7426]; P. Petrie III 32 f Vo col. ii l. 7-13 [TM 7426]; P. Petrie III 36 d [TM 7436]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 578 [TM 5298]; P.
Tarich. 1 [TM 316241]; P. Tarich. 3 [TM 316243]; P. Tarich. 4 a [TM 316244]; P. Tarich. 4 b [TM 316245]; P. Tarich. 5
g col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18 [TM 316246]; P. Tarich. 5 g col. ii l. 19 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 316246]; P. Tebt. I 41 [TM 78772]; P.
Tebt. I 42 [TM 3678]; P. Tebt. I 183 [TM 3816]; P. Tebt. III 773 Ro Greek [TM 7850]; P. Tebt. III 777 [TM 7852]; P.
Tebt. III 786 [TM 5372]; P. Tebt. III 787 [TM 5373]; P. Tebt. III 788 [TM 5374]; P. Tebt. III 789 [TM 5375]; P. Tebt. III
790 [TM 5376]; P. Tebt. III 791 [TM 5377]; P. Tebt. III 792 [TM 5378]; P. Tebt. III 895 l. 1-59 [TM 5445]; P. Texas inv.
6 [TM 131719]; P. Thrace 1 [TM 97786]; P. Tor. Choach. 4 [TM 3593]; P. Tor. Choach. 5 a [TM 3594]; P. Tor. Choach.
5 b [TM 3595]; P. Turku 1 [TM 8087]; P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 Ro [TM 41560]; P. Vindob. G 56637 [TM 703255]; P.
Vindob. G 56639 [TM 703254] (?); P. Yale IV 140 [TM 873595]; PSI XV 1514 [TM 8071]; SB XVI 12468 [TM 4127]; SB
XVI 12721 [TM 4149]; SB XVIII 13093 [TM 2520]; SB XVIII 13095 [TM 2522]; SB XVIII 13096 [TM 2523]; SB XVIII
13097 [TM 2524]; SB XX 14999 [TM 8121]; SB XX 15068 [TM 8124]; SB XXII 15536 [TM 8819]; SB XXIV 15938 [TM
3077]; SB XXVIII 17175 [TM 44526]; UPZ I 5 [TM 3396]; UPZ I 17 [TM 3408]; UPZ I 22 [TM 3413]; UPZ I 24 [TM
3415]; UPZ I 32 [TM 3423]; UPZ I 33 [TM 3424]; UPZ I 34 [TM 3425]; UPZ I 35 [TM 3426]; UPZ I 36 [TM 3427]; UPZ I
39 [TM 3430]; UPZ I 40 [TM 3431]; UPZ I 43 [TM 3434]; UPZ I 44 [TM 3435]; UPZ I 45 [TM 3436]; UPZ I 46 [TM 3437];
UPZ I 47 [TM 3438]; UPZ I 48 [TM 3439]; UPZ I 49 [TM 3440]; UPZ I 50 [TM 3441]; UPZ I 51 [TM 3442]; UPZ I 52 [TM
3443]; UPZ I 53 [TM 3444]; UPZ I 58 Vo l. 1-4 [TM 3449]; UPZ I 122 [TM 3514]; UPZ I 124 [TM 3516].
- Detention (24 texts): BGU VIII 1821 [TM 4900]; BGU VIII 1847 [TM 4926]; BGU VIII 1889 [TM 4968] (?); P.
Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM 5038]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 378 [TM 3075]; P. Mich. XVIII 773 [TM 8767]; P. Petrie III 36 a Ro [TM
7701]; P. Petrie III 36 a Vo [TM 7433]; P. Petrie III 36 b col. i-ii [TM 7434]; P. Polit. Iud. 2 [TM 44618]; P. Tarich. 1
[TM 316241]; P. Tarich. 2 [TM 316242]; P. Tarich. 4 a [TM 316244]; P. Tarich. 4 b [TM 316245]; P. Tarich. 13 [TM
316256]; P. Tebt. III 772 [TM 5364]; P. Tebt. III 777 [TM 7852]; P. Turku 1 [TM 8087]; P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 Ro [TM
41560]; P. Yale IV 140 [TM 873595]; P. Vindob. G 56637 [TM 703255]; SB XXIV 16285 [TM 8808]; SB XXVI 16742
[TM 41487]; SB XXVI 16743 [TM 41488].
- Theft (66 texts): BGU VI 1253 [TM 7325]; BGU VIII 1824 [TM 4903]; BGU VIII 1832 [TM 4911]; BGU VIII 1835
[TM 4914]; BGU VIII 1857 [TM 4936]; BGU VIII 1858 [TM 4937]; BGU VIII 1860 [TM 4939]; P. Bingen 44 [TM 78024];
P. Dion. 10 [TM 3093]; P. Duke inv. 360 [TM 58468]; P. Erasm. I 2 [TM 5049]; P. Erasm. I 4 [TM 44709]; P. Hamb. IV
238 [TM 43304]; P. Heid. Gr. VIII 421 [TM 47299]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 423 l. 4-15 [TM 89278]; P. Iand. inv. 398 [TM
218351]; P. Köln Gr. V 216 [TM 2482]; P. Köln Gr. VI 261 Ro [TM 2486]; P. Lips. II 126 [TM 78441]; P. Monts. Roca IV
66 [TM 219243]; P. Oxy. XII 1465 [TM 43902]; P. Petrie III 32 g Ro (a) [TM 7427]; P. Petrie III 36 d [TM 7436]; P. Sal.
Gr. 2 [TM 495485]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 91 [TM 3918]; P. Tebt. I 45 [TM 3681]; P. Tebt. I 46 [TM 3682]; P. Tebt. I 47 [TM
3683]; P. Tebt. I 52 [TM 3688]; P. Tebt. I 53 [TM 3689]; P. Tebt. III 784 [TM 7854]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. i l. 22-30 [TM
5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. vi l. 19-26 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 1-3 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l.
10-16 [TM 5379] (?); P. Tebt. III 793 col. xii l. 22-26 [TM 5379] (?); P. Tebt. III 796 [TM 5381]; P. Tebt. III 797 [TM
7856]; P. Tebt. III 802 [TM 5385]; P. Tebt. III 804 [TM 5387] (?); P. Tebt. III 954 [TM 5470] (?); P. Tebt. III 959 [TM
5474]; P. Tebt. IV 1095 [TM 3762]; P. Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763]; P. Tebt. IV 1098 [TM 3908]; P. Würzb. 4 [TM 5532]; P.
Würzb. 5 [TM 5533]; P. Yale I 53 [TM 41798]; P. Yale IV 140 [TM 873595]; PSI III 169 [TM 5546]; PSI III 172 [TM
44132]; PSI XIII 1317 [TM 5583]; PSI XV 1514 [TM 8071]; PUG IV 141 [TM 703033] (?); SB IV 7351 [TM 5688] (?); SB
VI 9068 [TM 6195]; SB VI 9537 [TM 6229]; SB VIII 9792 [TM 5794]; SB X 10273 [TM 5802] (?); SB XIV 11273 [TM
4206]; SB XXIV 15938 [TM 3077]; SB XXVI 16800 [TM 44707] (?); SB XXVIII 17157 [TM 133350]; SB XXVIII 17251
[TM 47350]; UPZ I 5 [TM 3396]; UPZ I 122 [TM 3514].
- Damage to property (33 texts): BGU III 1007 [TM 5552]; BGU VI 1247 [TM 4538]; BGU VI 1254 [TM
4542] (?); BGU VIII 1831 [TM 4910]; BGU VIII 1855 [TM 4934]; Chrest. Wilck. 11 b [TM 376]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 422 [TM
89277]; P. Hels. I 31 [TM 5166]; P. Köln Gr. III 140 [TM 3174]; P. Köln Gr. XIII 521 [TM 219337]; P. Mich. XV 688 [TM
47503]; P. Petrie III 31 [TM 7421] (?); P. Petrie III 32 g Ro (b) [TM 7699]; P. Petrie III 34 b [TM 7430]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 69
[TM 5287]; P. Tebt. I 45 [TM 3681]; P. Tebt. I 46 [TM 3682]; P. Tebt. I 47 [TM 3683]; P. Tebt. I 49 [TM 3685]; P. Tebt. I
50 [TM 3686]; P. Tebt. I 54 [TM 3690]; P. Tebt. III 781 [TM 5369] (?); P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 17-28 [TM 5379]; P.
Tebt. III 799 [TM 5382]; P. Tebt. III 961 l. 1-12 [TM 5475] (?); P. Tebt. IV 1095 [TM 3762]; P. Texas inv. 6 [TM
131719]; P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 Ro [TM 41560]; PSI III 168 [TM 5545]; PSI III 171 [TM 5548]; SB XII 10770 [TM
4345]; SB XVI 12524 [TM 14608]; SB XXII 15762 [TM 43001].
- Use and ownership of immovable property (47 texts): BGU IV 1187 [TM 4524]; BGU VI 1244
[TM 4405]; BGU VI 1255 [TM 7326]; BGU VIII 1761 l. 5-16 [TM 4842]; BGU VIII 1772 l. 30-44 [TM 4853]; BGU VIII
1783 l. 9-29 [TM 4864] (?); BGU VIII 1820 [TM 4899]; BGU VIII 1823 [TM 4902]; BGU VIII 1826 [TM 4905]; BGU VIII
1827 [TM 4906]; BGU VIII 1844 [TM 4923]; BGU VIII 1859 a [TM 4938]; P. Bingen 44 [TM 78024]; P. Dryton 33 [TM
253]; P. Dryton 33 bis [TM 252]; P. Dryton 34 [TM 284]; P. Eleph. Gr. 19 [TM 5852]; P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. Eleph.
Dem. 10 [TM 44603]; P. Erbstreit 13 d l. 54-58 [TM 5882]; P. Erbstreit 16 l. 11-27 [TM 156]; P. Grenf. I 11 + P. Heid.
Gr. 1288 col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 5 [TM 247]; P. Lips. II 125 [TM 44410] (?); P. Merton I 5 [TM 5238]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 579 [TM
44149]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 100 [TM 3927]; P. Tebt. I 29 [TM 78767]; P. Tebt. III 775 [TM 5366]; P. Tebt. III 779 [TM
5367]; P. Tebt. III 780 Ro col. ii [TM 5368]; P. Tebt. III 785 [TM 5371]; P. Tor. Choach. 3 [TM 3591]; P. Tor. Choach.
11 [TM 3561]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 bis l. 8-33 [TM 3562]; P. Tor. Choach. 12 col. i l. 14 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 3563]; P. Yale
IV 138 [TM 873593]; P. Yale IV 142 [TM 873597]; P. Yale IV 145 [TM 79335]; P. Yale IV 146 [TM 873586]; P. Yale IV
148 [TM 873588]; PSI III 173 [TM 43330]; PSI XV 1512 [TM 44214]; SB V 8033 [TM 5706]; SB VI 9108 [TM 5728]; SB
VI 9123 [TM 6196]; SB XIV 11273 [TM 4206]; SB XVI 12524 [TM 14608]; SB XXII 15463 [TM 79044] (?).
- Lease and rental agreements (18 texts): BGU VIII 1757 l. 9-11 [TM 8295]; BGU VIII 1813 [TM 4892];
BGU VIII 1814 [TM 4893]; BGU VIII 1822 [TM 4901]; BGU VIII 1856 [TM 4935]; P. Giss. Univ. I 3 [TM 42854]; P. Giss.
Univ. I 5 [TM 8335]; CPJ IV 577 [TM 851556]; P. Köln Gr. XI 452 [TM 112487] (?); P. Petrie III 28 a [TM 7406]; P.
Polit. Iud. 12 [TM 44628]; P. Polit. Iud. 13 [TM 44629] (?); P. Tebt. I 42 [TM 3678]; P. Tebt. III 805 [TM 5388]; P. Yale
IV 139 [TM 873594]; SB III 6002 [TM 5645]; SB XVIII 13099 [TM 2526]; SB XXVI 16801 [TM 44708].
- Constructions built by the petitioner or the other party (7 texts): BGU VIII 1859 a [TM
4938]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 579 [TM 44149]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 100 [TM 3927]; P. Tebt. III 779 [TM 5367]; P. Tebt. III 780 Ro
col. ii [TM 5368]; P. Yale IV 138 [TM 873593]; P. Yale IV 142 [TM 873597].
- Sales (15 texts): BGU VIII 1837 [TM 4916] (?); BGU XIV 2373 [TM 3993] (?); P. Diosk. 3 [TM 44719]; P. Diosk.
8 [TM 43832]; P. Mich. III 173 [TM 8337]; P. Polit. Iud. 5 [TM 44621]; P. Polit. Iud. 9 [TM 44625]; P. Polit. Iud. 11 [TM
44627]; P. Polit. Iud. 15 [TM 44631]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 100 [TM 3927]; P. Yale I 53 [TM 41798]; SB VI 9108 [TM 5728];
SB XVIII 13253 [TM 2538] (?); UPZ I 12 [TM 3403]; UPZ I 13 [TM 3404].
- Loans and property given in safekeeping (20 texts): BGU VI 1255 [TM 7326]; BGU VIII 1818
[TM 4897]; BGU VIII 1823 [TM 4902]; P. Dion. 11 [TM 3094]; P. Dion. 12 l. 6-21 [TM 3095]; P. Duke inv. 360 [TM
58468]; P. Giss. Univ. I 1 [TM 44587]; P. Gurob 5 [TM 5868]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138]; P. Lond. II 220 Ro col. i l. 1-16
[TM 5888]; P. Polit. Iud. 8 [TM 44624]; P. Princ. III 117 [TM 5908]; P. Strasb. Gr. VIII 781 [TM 3972]; P. Yale IV 141
[TM 873596]; P. Yale IV 144 [TM 873599]; P. Yale IV 147 [TM 873587]; SB VI 9420 [TM 5774]; SB XVI 12305 [TM
4078]; SB XXIV 16295 [TM 8810]; UPZ I 2 [TM 3393].
- Sureties and securities (13 texts): P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM 5038]; P. Dion. 11 [TM 3094]; P. Dion. 12 l.
6-21 [TM 3095]; P. Diosk. 12 [TM 44727]; P. Eleph. Gr. 19 [TM 5852]; P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. Eleph. Dem. 10 [TM
44603]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138]; P. Mich. III 173 [TM 8337]; P. Polit. Iud. 8 [TM 44624]; P. Tebt. III 776 [TM 7851]; P.
Würzb. 4 [TM 5532]; SB XXIV 16295 [TM 8810]; SB XXVI 16801 [TM 44708].
- Inheritances (17 texts): BGU IV 1187 [TM 4524]; BGU VIII 1761 l. 5-16 [TM 4842]; P. Dryton 33 [TM 253];
P. Dryton 33 bis [TM 252]; P. Dryton 34 [TM 284]; P. Erbstreit 13 d l. 54-58 [TM 5882]; P. Erbstreit 16 l. 11-27 [TM
156]; P. Gen. III 126 l. 21-46 [TM 43084]; P. Gen. III 128 [TM 43079]; P. Lips. II 125 [TM 44410] (?); P. Ryl. Gr. II 256
[TM 78743]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 579 [TM 44149]; P. Tebt. III 780 Ro col. ii [TM 5368]; P. Tor. Choach. 3 [TM 3591]; P. Yale
IV 146 [TM 873586]; SB VIII 9790 [TM 5954] (?); UPZ I 123 [TM 3515].
- Marriage contracts and dowries (17 texts): BGU VIII 1820 [TM 4899]; BGU VIII 1825 [TM 4904];
BGU VIII 1826 [TM 4905]; BGU VIII 1827 [TM 4906]; BGU VIII 1845 [TM 4924] (?); BGU VIII 1848 [TM 4927]; BGU
VIII 1849 [TM 4928]; P. Fordham inv. 5 [TM 129892]; P. Gen. III 126 l. 21-46 [TM 43084]; P. Polit. Iud. 3 [TM 44619];
P. Polit. Iud. 4 [TM 44620]; P. Polit. Iud. 5 [TM 44621]; P. Tebt. I 51 [TM 3687]; P. Tebt. III 776 [TM 7851]; P. Yale IV
143 [TM 873598]; PSI III 166 [TM 8354]; SB XX 14592 [TM 8068].
- Work agreements (45 texts): P. Diosk. 2 [TM 44718]; P. Grenf. I 42 [TM 266]; P. Köln Gr. X 413 [TM
47274]; P. Polit. Iud. 9 [TM 44625]; P. Polit. Iud. 10 [TM 44626]; P. Tarich. 1 [TM 316241]; P. Tarich. 3 [TM 316243];
P. Tarich. 4 a [TM 316244]; P. Tarich. 4 b [TM 316245]; P. Tarich. 5 g col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18 [TM 316246]; P. Tarich. 5
g col. ii l. 19 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 316246]; P. Tarich. 6 a [TM 316247]; P. Tarich. 6 b [TM 316248]; P. Tarich. 7 [TM
316249]; P. Tarich. 8 [TM 316250]; P. Tarich. 9 a [TM 316251]; P. Tarich. 9 b [TM 316252]; P. Tarich. 11 [TM
316254]; P. Tarich. 12 l. 1-5 [TM 316255]; P. Tarich. 13 [TM 316256]; P. Tor. Amen. 7 [TM 3597]; P. Tor. Amen. 8
[TM 3598]; SB XX 14999 [TM 8121]; UPZ I 17 [TM 3408]; UPZ I 22 [TM 3413]; UPZ I 24 [TM 3415]; UPZ I 32 [TM
40 [TM 3431]; UPZ I 43 [TM 3434]; UPZ I 44 [TM 3435]; UPZ I 45 [TM 3436]; UPZ I 46 [TM 3437]; UPZ I 47 [TM 3438];
3444]; UPZ I 58 Vo l. 1-4 [TM 3449].
- Taxes and rent due to the state (49 texts): BGU VIII 1779 [TM 4860]; BGU VIII 1813 [TM 4892];
BGU VIII 1815 [TM 4894]; BGU VIII 1828 [TM 4907]; BGU VIII 1829 [TM 4908]; BGU VIII 1843 [TM 4922]; BGU VIII
1846 [TM 4925]; BGU VIII 1850 [TM 4929]; BGU VIII 1851 [TM 4930]; BGU VIII 1856 [TM 4935]; BGU VIII 1867 [TM
4946]; BGU XIV 2375 [TM 3995]; BGU XX 2845 [TM 316208]; CPR XXVIII 11 [TM 117591]; P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM
5038]; P. Duke inv. 676 [TM 58467]; P. Gurob 5 [TM 5868]; P. Hamb. III 202 [TM 78269]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 382 [TM
3079]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 433 [TM 89288]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138]; P. Mich. XVIII 773 [TM 8767]; P. Mich. XVIII 774 [TM
8768]; P. Mich. XVIII 778 [TM 8772]; P. Mich. XVIII 779 [TM 8773]; P. Oxf. 1 [TM 42959]; P. Petrie III 32 f Ro [TM
7426]; P. Petrie III 32 f Vo col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 6 [TM 7426]; P. Petrie III 32 f Vo col. ii l. 7-13 [TM 7426]; P. Petrie III 36
d [TM 7436]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 66 a l. 3-9 [TM 5285] (?); P. Ryl. Gr. IV 578 [TM 5298]; P. Tebt. I 183 [TM 3816]; P. Tebt. III
772 [TM 5364]; P. Tebt. III 773 Ro Greek [TM 7850]; P. Thrace 1 [TM 97786]; P. Tor. Choach. 4 [TM 3593]; P. Tor.
Choach. 5 a [TM 3594]; P. Tor. Choach. 5 b [TM 3595]; P. Turku 1 [TM 8087]; P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 Ro [TM 41560];
P. Vindob. G 56639 [TM 703254] (?); SB XVIII 13093 [TM 2520]; SB XVIII 13095 [TM 2522]; SB XVIII 13096 [TM
2523]; SB XVIII 13097 [TM 2524]; SB XX 15068 [TM 8124]; SB XXII 15762 [TM 43001]; SB XXVIII 17175 [TM 44526].
- State-monopolised and other state-controlled industries and trades (13 texts): BGU
VI 1252 [TM 7324]; P. Diosk. 5 [TM 44721]; P. Duke inv. 676 [TM 58467]; P. Erasm. I 5 [TM 5051]; P. Giss. Univ. I 2
[TM 8175]; P. Köln Gr. VI 261 Ro [TM 2486]; P. Mich. XVIII 778 [TM 8772]; P. Mich. XVIII 779 [TM 8773]; P. Rainer
Cent. 51 [TM 8605]; P. Tebt. I 38 l. 10-28 [TM 3674]; P. Tebt. I 39 [TM 3675]; P. Tebt. IV 1094 [TM 3761]; SB XXVIII
16851 [TM 112672].
- Contributions to and services by associations (3 texts): BGU IV 1190 [TM 4525]; BGU VI 1256
[TM 4543]; P. Dryton 31 [TM 286].
- Endowments for temples (1 text): BGU VIII 1854 [TM 4933].
- Forgeries (2 texts): P. Gen. III 128 [TM 43079]; P. Tebt. I 42 [TM 3678].
- Runaway slaves (2 texts): P. Diosk. 9 [TM 44724]; SB XXVIII 16855 [TM 5132].
types of petitions: homicide (BGU VI 1244 [TM 4405]; BGU VIII 1796 l. 3-6 [TM 4876]; BGU VIII 1857 [TM
4936]; P. Duke inv. 360 [TM 58468]; P. Köln Gr. VI 272 [TM 3202]); obstruction of a pending judicial procedure
concerning the death of a child or slave (P. Polit. Iud. 6 [TM 44622]); dispute concerning the guardianship over a
girl (P. Polit. Iud. 7 [TM 44623]).
petitions: grave robbery (UPZ II 187 [TM 3589]).
- Disputes of uncertain nature: BGU VI 1470 Ro l. 1-6 [TM 61247]; BGU VIII 1756 l. 8-18 [TM 4838]; BGU
[TM 4945]; BGU VIII 1868 [TM 4947]; BGU X 1907 [TM 4970]; BGU X 1909 [TM 8294]; P. Bingen 35 [TM 44500]; P.
Diosk. 11 [TM 44726]; P. Enteux. B [TM 3389]; P. Erasm. I 3 [TM 5050]; P. Hal. Kurth inv. II.b 1 [TM 383461]; P.
Hamb. I 92 l. 8-18 [TM 5133]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 381 [TM 3078]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 432 [TM 89287]; P. Louvre II 98 [TM
88764]; P. Münch. III 50 [TM 5249]; P. Petrie III 29 b [TM 7412]; P. Petrie III 29 c [TM 7413]; P. Petrie III 29 d [TM
7414]; P. Petrie III 29 e [TM 7415]; P. Petrie III 30 [TM 7420]; P. Petrie III 36 c [TM 7435]; P. Polit. Iud. 14 [TM
44630]; P. Polit. Iud. 16 [TM 44632]; P. Rainer Cent. 50 [TM 8604]; P. Rainer Cent. 52 [TM 8606]; P. Rainer Cent. 54
[TM 8607]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 577 [TM 5297]; P. Strasb. Gr. VI 564 [TM 3946]; P. Tebt. I 264 [TM 3893]; P. Tebt. III 780 Ro
col. i [TM 5368]; P. Tebt. III 782 [TM 5370]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. iv l. 14-23 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 29-30
[TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 803 [TM 5386]; P. Tebt. III 934 l. 7-26 [TM 5460]; P. Tebt. III 952 [TM 5468]; P. Tebt. III 962
[TM 7989]; P. Tebt. III 964 [TM 5476]; P. Tebt. IV 1097 [TM 3907]; P. Yale IV 151 [TM 873591]; PSI III 170 [TM 5547];
PSI VII 815 [TM 5565]; PSI Com. XI 4 [TM 220370]; PUG II 57 [TM 78854]; SB VIII 9674 [TM 5946]; SB XIV 12163 [TM
4317]; SB XVIII 13092 [TM 2519]; SB XXII 15559 [TM 8792]; SB XXVIII 16874 [TM 133400].
Requests

harassment, (7) requests to make the other party do justice, (8) requests concerning
seizure or blocking of property, (9) requests for release from detention, (10)
requests for release of a mortgage, (11) requests for release from liturgical
obligations, (12) requests to initiate proceedings before the chrematistai, (13)
general requests for support, and (14) some other requests that do not fit any of the
above categories and are exclusively attested in later ὑπομνήματα.
Many petitions ask to summon, send or bring the other party (149 texts), the
petitioner (7 texts), both the other party and the petitioner (3 texts) or witnesses (2
texts) before an authority.161 This action is referred to with the following verbs:162
- 29 texts use ἀνακαλέομαι (“to summon”): CPR XXVIII 11 [TM 117591]; P. Diosk. 12 [TM 44727]; P.
Duke inv. 360 [TM 58468]; P. Eleph. Gr. 19 [TM 5852]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138]; P. Petrie III 29 b [TM 7412]; P. Petrie
III 29 e [TM 7415]; P. Petrie III 31 [TM 7421]; P. Petrie III 32 c [TM 7424]; P. Petrie III 36 d [TM 7436]; P. Polit. Iud. 6
[TM 44622]; P. Polit. Iud. 7 [TM 44623]; P. Polit. Iud. 9 [TM 44625]; P. Polit. Iud. 10 [TM 44626]; P. Polit. Iud. 15 [TM
44631]; P. Tarich. 1 [TM 316241]; P. Tarich. 2 [TM 316242]; P. Tor. Amen. 8 [TM 3598]; P. Vindob. G 56639 [TM
703254]; P. Yale IV 139 [TM 873594]; PSI V 542 [TM 2164]; SB VI 9420 [TM 5774]; SB XXIV 16285 [TM 8808]; UPZ I 2
[TM 3393]; UPZ I 46 [TM 3437]; UPZ I 51 [TM 3442]; UPZ I 52 [TM 3443]; UPZ I 53 [TM 3444]; UPZ I 123 [TM 3515].
161
In P. Heid. Gr. VI 378 [TM 3075], P. Petrie III 29 c [TM 7413], P. Petrie III 29 e [TM 7415], P. Petrie III 36 a Vo [TM
7433], P. Tarich. 1 [TM 316241], P. Tarich. 2 [TM 316242] and P. Tarich. 13 [TM 316256], the request concerns the
petitioner. In P. Merton I 5 [TM 5238], P. Petrie III 29 b [TM 7412] and SB XXIV 16285 [TM 8808], the request
concerns both the other party and the petitioner. In P. Tarich. 9 a [TM 316251] and UPZ I 124 [TM 3516], the
request concerns witnesses.
162
In BGU VIII 1868 [TM 4947], P. Köln Gr. XI 455 [TM 112490], P. Monts. Roca IV 66 [TM 219243] and P. Tarich. 3
[TM 316243], the expressions are not fully preserved.
- 12 texts use προσκαλέομαι (“to summon”): BGU VIII 1860 [TM 4939]; P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM
5038]; P. Diosk. 2 [TM 44718]; CPJ IV 577 [TM 851556]; P. Mich. III 173 [TM 8337]; P. Polit. Iud. 1 [TM 44617]; P.
Polit. Iud. 11 [TM 44627]; P. Polit. Iud. 12 [TM 44628]; P. Tebt. I 49 [TM 3685]; P. Tebt. III 780 Ro col. ii [TM 5368];
UPZ I 47 [TM 3438]; UPZ I 50 [TM 3441].
- 1 text uses εἰσκαλέομαι (“to summon”): P. Petrie III 29 c [TM 7413].
- 21 texts use μεταπέμπομαι (“to summon”): BGU VIII 1848 [TM 4927]; P. Diosk. 7 [TM 44723]; P.
Diosk. 11 [TM 44726]; P. Dryton 34 [TM 284]; P. Duke inv. 676 [TM 58467]; P. Enteux. B [TM 3389]; P. Giss. Univ. I 1
[TM 44587]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 378 [TM 3075]; P. Köln Gr. X 413 [TM 47274]; P. Lond. II 220 Ro col. i l. 1-16 [TM 5888];
P. Mich. XVIII 773 [TM 8767]; P. Mich. XVIII 774 [TM 8768]; P. Polit. Iud. 3 [TM 44619]; P. Polit. Iud. 16 [TM 44632];
P. Tarich. 13 [TM 316256]; P. Tebt. III 773 Ro Greek [TM 7850]; P. Tebt. III 784 [TM 7854]; P. Texas inv. 6 [TM
131719]; P. Tor. Choach. 12 col. i l. 14 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 3563]; P. Yale IV 144 [TM 873599]; SB XXIV 15938 [TM
3077].
- 2 texts use παραγγέλλω (“to summon”): P. Polit. Iud. 4 [TM 44620]; UPZ I 12 [TM 3403].
- 10 texts use ἀποστέλλω (“to send”): BGU VI 1244 [TM 4405]; P. Hamb. IV 238 [TM 43304]; P. Köln
Gr. III 140 [TM 3174]; P. Köln Gr. XIII 521 [TM 219337]; P. Petrie III 36 a Vo [TM 7433]; P. Tarich. 4 a [TM 316244];
P. Tarich. 4 b [TM 316245]; P. Vindob. G 56637 [TM 703255]; SB X 10271 Ro [TM 5801]; SB XXIV 16295 [TM 8810].
- 24 texts use ἐξαποστέλλω (“to send”): BGU VI 1253 [TM 7325]; BGU VI 1255 [TM 7326]; BGU VIII
1761 l. 5-16 [TM 4842]; P. Dion. 10 [TM 3093]; P. Erbstreit 16 l. 11-27 [TM 156]; P. Giss. Univ. I 9 [TM 42855]; P.
Grenf. I 38 [TM 262]; P. Lips. II 126 [TM 78441]; P. Polit. Iud. 8 [TM 44624]; P. Rainer Cent. 51 [TM 8605]; P. Sal. Gr.
2 [TM 495485]; P. Tarich. 6 b [TM 316248]; P. Tarich. 9 a [TM 316251]; P. Tebt. III 785 [TM 5371]; P. Tebt. III 797
[TM 7856]; P. Tebt. III 960 [TM 7988]; P. Tor. Choach. 12 col. i l. 14 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 3563]; P. Yale IV 140 [TM
873595]; PSI V 542 [TM 2164]; PSI VII 816 [TM 44190]; SB VIII 9674 [TM 5946]; SB XXVI 16800 [TM 44707]; SB
XXVIII 17157 [TM 133350]; UPZ I 7 [TM 3398].
- 1 text uses καταστέλλω (“to send”): P. Tebt. I 41 [TM 78772].
- 2 texts use ἀναπέμπω (“to send”): P. Petrie III 32 g Ro (a) [TM 7427]; P. Petrie III 32 g Ro (b) [TM
7699].
- 2 texts use ἐκπέμπω (“to send”): P. Diosk. 4 [TM 44720]; P. Tebt. III 786 [TM 5372].
- 1 text uses συμπέμπω (“to send”): P. Coll. Youtie I 16 [TM 5041].
- 43 texts use καθίστημι (“to bring”): BGU IV 1187 [TM 4524]; BGU VIII 1816 [TM 4895]; BGU VIII 1821
[TM 4900]; BGU VIII 1824 [TM 4903]; BGU VIII 1832 [TM 4911]; BGU VIII 1844 [TM 4923]; BGU VIII 1855 [TM 4934];
BGU VIII 1858 [TM 4937]; P. Amh. Gr. II 35 [TM 8621]; P. Bingen 44 [TM 78024]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 431 [TM 89286]; P.
Louvre II 98 [TM 88764]; P. Oxy. XII 1465 [TM 43902]; P. Princ. III 117 [TM 5908]; P. Rainer Cent. 52 [TM 8606]; P.
Ryl. Gr. II 256 [TM 78743]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 577 [TM 5297]; P. Strasb. Gr. VI 564 [TM 3946]; P. Tebt. I 45 [TM 3681]; P.
Tebt. I 50 [TM 3686]; P. Tebt. I 54 [TM 3690]; P. Tebt. I 183 [TM 3816]; P. Tebt. III 961 l. 1-12 [TM 5475]; P. Tebt. IV
1098 [TM 3908]; P. Tor. Amen. 7 [TM 3597]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 [TM 3561]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 bis l. 8-33 [TM 3562];
P. Würzb. 5 [TM 5533]; P. Yale IV 138 [TM 873593]; P. Yale IV 141 [TM 873596]; P. Yale IV 142 [TM 873597]; P. Yale
IV 143 [TM 873598]; P. Yale IV 146 [TM 873586]; P. Yale IV 147 [TM 873587]; PSI III 166 [TM 8354]; PSI III 172 [TM
44132]; SB III 6002 [TM 5645]; SB VI 9108 [TM 5728]; SB VI 9123 [TM 6196]; SB XIV 11273 [TM 4206]; UPZ I 5 [TM
3396]; UPZ I 8 [TM 3399]; UPZ I 124 [TM 3516].
- 5 texts use ἀποκαθίστημι (“to bring”): P. Köln Gr. VI 272 [TM 3202]; P. Mich. XVIII 778 [TM 8772];
P. Mich. XVIII 779 [TM 8773]; PUG IV 141 [TM 703033]; SB X 10253 [TM 5798].
- 1 text uses ἄγω (“to bring”): P. Tarich. 5 g col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18 [TM 316246].
- 6 texts use ἀνάγω (“to bring”): BGU VI 1252 [TM 7324]; P. Hels. I 31 [TM 5166]; P. Merton I 5 [TM
5238]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 68 [TM 5286]; PSI III 168 [TM 5545]; UPZ II 187 [TM 3589].
- 33 texts use ἐπισκέπτομαι - ἐπίσκεψις (“to investigate” - “investigation”): BGU VI 1247

[TM 4538]; BGU VIII 1860 [TM 4939]; CPR XXVIII 11 [TM 117591]; P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM 5038]; P. Diosk. 7 [TM
44723]; P. Dryton 34 [TM 284]; P. Duke inv. 676 [TM 58467]; P. Köln Gr. XI 452 [TM 112487]; P. Köln Gr. XIII 521
[TM 219337]; P. Merton I 5 [TM 5238]; P. Oxf. 1 [TM 42959]; P. Petrie III 29 b [TM 7412]; P. Petrie III 29 c [TM 7413];
P. Petrie III 32 a [TM 7422]; P. Petrie III 32 g Ro (a) [TM 7427]; P. Petrie III 32 g Ro (b) [TM 7699]; P. Tarich. 1 [TM
316241]; P. Tarich. 2 [TM 316242]; P. Tebt. III 775 [TM 5366]; P. Tebt. III 780 Ro col. ii [TM 5368]; P. Tebt. III 797
[TM 7856]; P. Tor. Choach. 12 col. i l. 14 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 3563]; P. Vindob. G 56637 [TM 703255]; PSI III 168 [TM
5545]; PSI V 542 [TM 2164]; PUG II 57 [TM 78854]; PUG IV 141 [TM 703033]; SB VI 9420 [TM 5774]; SB VIII 9792
[TM 5794]; SB XX 15068 [TM 8124]; SB XXIV 15938 [TM 3077]; SB XXVIII 17175 [TM 44526]; UPZ II 187 [TM 3589].
- 1 text uses ἐξέτασις (“examination”): P. Tebt. III 793 col. i l. 22-30 [TM 5379].
- 3 texts use διακούω (“to hear”): P. Heid. Gr. IX 431 [TM 89286]; SB X 10271 Ro [TM 5801]; SB XXIV
16285 [TM 8808].
- 5 texts use ἐπέρχομαι (“to come”, typically used in requests for on-site
examinations): BGU VI 1253 [TM 7325]; BGU VIII 1859 a [TM 4938]; P. Tebt. III 800 [TM 5383]; SB XII 10770
[TM 4345]; SB XXII 15762 [TM 43001].
- 3 texts use ἐπερωτάω (“to question”): P. Petrie III 36 d [TM 7436]; P. Tarich. 4 a [TM 316244]; P.
Tarich. 4 b [TM 316245].
5 petitions ask for a judgement, expressed by the closely related terms κρίσις,
διακρίνω and συνκρίνω:
- 3 texts use κρίσις: P. Duke inv. 676 [TM 58467]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 [TM 3561].
- 2 texts use διακρίνω: P. Köln Gr. XIII 521 [TM 219337]; P. Tebt. III 772 [TM 5364].
- 1 text uses συνκρίνω: P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138].
69 petitions ask to punish the accused. This punishment can be referred to in

various ways:
- 26 texts use διαλαμβάνω περί / ὑπέρ - διάληψις (“to take a decision about [accused
or offense]” - “decision”): BGU VIII 1832 [TM 4911]; BGU VIII 1855 [TM 4934]; P. Amh. Gr. II 35 [TM 8621];
P. Dryton 34 [TM 284]; P. Erasm. I 5 [TM 5051]; P. Köln Gr. XI 455 [TM 112490]; P. Polit. Iud. 1 [TM 44617]; P. Polit.
Iud. 4 [TM 44620]; P. Polit. Iud. 6 [TM 44622]; P. Polit. Iud. 9 [TM 44625]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 68 [TM 5286]; P. Tarich. 1
[TM 316241]; P. Tebt. III 786 [TM 5372]; P. Tebt. III 961 l. 1-12 [TM 5475]; P. Tebt. Pad. 10 [TM 412064]; P. Tor.
Choach. 11 [TM 3561]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 bis l. 8-33 [TM 3562]; P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 Ro [TM 41560]; P. Yale IV
138 [TM 873593]; P. Yale IV 146 [TM 873586]; PSI VII 816 [TM 44190]; SB XXVIII 16855 [TM 5132]; SB XXVIII 17157
[TM 133350]; UPZ I 5 [TM 3396]; UPZ I 7 [TM 3398]; UPZ II 187 [TM 3589].
- 1 text uses χράομαι (“to deal with [accused]”): P. Petrie III 32 f Vo col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 6 [TM
7426].
- 18 texts use ἐπιπλήσσω - ἐπίπληξις (“to punish” - “punishment”): BGU VI 1252 [TM
7324]; BGU VI 1253 [TM 7325]; P. Diosk. 7 [TM 44723]; P. Diosk. 11 [TM 44726]; P. Tebt. I 41 [TM 78772]; P. Tebt. I
45 [TM 3681]; P. Tebt. I 46 [TM 3682]; P. Tebt. I 47 [TM 3683]; P. Tebt. I 183 [TM 3816]; P. Tebt. III 784 [TM 7854]; P.
Tebt. III 785 [TM 5371]; P. Tebt. III 797 [TM 7856]; P. Tebt. III 934 l. 7-26 [TM 5460]; P. Tebt. IV 1095 [TM 3762]; P.
Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763]; P. Tor. Choach. 12 col. i l. 14 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 3563]; PSI V 542 [TM 2164]; SB VIII 9674
[TM 5946].
- 2 texts use εὔθυνα (“punishment”):163 BGU VIII 1816 [TM 4895]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 577 [TM 5297].
- 1 text uses κόλασις (“punishment”): BGU VIII 1860 [TM 4939].
- 2 texts ask to exact (πράσσω) a fine: P. Duke inv. 676 [TM 58467]; P. Tor. Amen. 8 [TM 3598].
- 11 texts ask to let the accused receive what is fitting (τυγχάνω ὧν προσήκει / τῶν
προσηκόντων / ἁρμοζόντως): BGU IV 1187 [TM 4524]; BGU VIII 1844 [TM 4923]; BGU VIII 1855 [TM
4934]; BGU VIII 1858 [TM 4937]; P. Hels. I 31 [TM 5166]; P. Oxy. XII 1465 [TM 43902]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 69 [TM 5287]; P.
Tebt. I 53 [TM 3689]; P. Würzb. 5 [TM 5533]; PUG IV 141 [TM 703033]; SB VIII 9792 [TM 5794].
- 2 texts ask to let the accused receive what is necessary (τυγχάνω ὧν δεῖ τυχεῖν): P.
Tarich. 4 a [TM 316244]; P. Tarich. 4 b [TM 316245].
- 2 texts ask to let the accused receive the consequences (τυγχάνω τῶν
ἐξακολουθούντων): P. Dion. 10 [TM 3093]; PSI III 168 [TM 5545].
- 1 text asks to let the accused receive “the fitting hatred of evil” (τυγχάνω τῆς
προσηκούσης μισοπονηρίας): UPZ I 8 [TM 3399].
- 4 texts ask not to let the accused escape unpunished (διαφεύγω ἀθῶιος): P. Lips. II 126
[TM 78441]; P. Tebt. I 44 [TM 3680]; P. Tebt. III 800 [TM 5383]; P. Tebt. IV 1098 [TM 3908].
Eight petitions add that the accused needs to be punished in order to deter others
(πρὸς ἐπίστασιν ἄλλων / ἑτέρων):164 BGU IV 1187 [TM 4524]; BGU VIII 1816 [TM 4895]; BGU VIII 1832
[TM 4911]; BGU VIII 1855 [TM 4934]; BGU VIII 1858 [TM 4937]; P. Amh. Gr. II 35 [TM 8621]; P. Oxy. XII 1465 [TM
43902]; P. Tebt. III 784 [TM 7854].
76 petitions ask to make the other party hand over money or movables: BGU VI 1252 [TM
7324]; BGU VI 1253 [TM 7325]; BGU VIII 1824 [TM 4903]; BGU VIII 1826 [TM 4905]; BGU VIII 1832 [TM 4911]; BGU
[TM 4939]; P. Amh. Gr. II 35 [TM 8621]; P. Dion. 10 [TM 3093]; P. Diosk. 2 [TM 44718]; P. Diosk. 8 [TM 43832]; P.
Diosk. 11 [TM 44726]; P. Dryton 34 [TM 284]; P. Enteux. B [TM 3389]; P. Hamb. IV 238 [TM 43304]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM
5138]; P. Mich. XVIII 773 [TM 8767]; P. Mich. XVIII 774 [TM 8768]; P. Oxy. XII 1465 [TM 43902]; P. Petrie III 31 [TM
163
In BGU VIII 1816 [TM 4895] the death penalty (θανατηφόροις εὐθύναις) is requested, in P. Ryl. Gr. IV 577 [TM
5297] the penalty prescribed by a certain royal ordinance (τῆς ἐκξακλουθούσης ἀπὸ τοῦ προ[σ]τάγματος
εὐθύνης). For the death penalty, see HELMIS, Crime et châtiment dans l'Égypte ptolémaïque, p. 197-200.
164
Two texts use other formulas: in BGU VIII 1816 [TM 4895], the fragmentary expression π̣ρ̣ὸ̣ς̣ ἑ̣τ̣έρων ἀνεν̣[ -
ca.?- ] can be found, and in P. Tebt. III 784 [TM 7854] the expression ὅπως (...) ἀ̣[πὸ δὲ τῆς] ἐπιπλήξεως
κ̣[ωλύσηις] ἑτέρους τὸ ὅμοιο[ν ἐπιτη]δεῦσαι (“and so that with this punishment you may deter others from
acting likewise”).
7421]; P. Petrie III 36 d [TM 7436]; P. Polit. Iud. 9 [TM 44625]; P. Polit. Iud. 11 [TM 44627]; P. Rainer Cent. 52 [TM
8606]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 66 a l. 3-9 [TM 5285]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 69 [TM 5287]; P. Strasb. Gr. VI 564 [TM 3946]; P. Strasb. Gr.
VIII 781 [TM 3972]; P. Tarich. 6 b [TM 316248]; P. Tebt. I 41 [TM 78772]; P. Tebt. I 45 [TM 3681]; P. Tebt. I 46 [TM
3682]; P. Tebt. I 47 [TM 3683]; P. Tebt. I 49 [TM 3685]; P. Tebt. I 50 [TM 3686]; P. Tebt. I 53 [TM 3689]; P. Tebt. I 54
[TM 3690]; P. Tebt. I 183 [TM 3816]; P. Tebt. III 773 Ro Greek [TM 7850]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 17-28 [TM 5379];
P. Tebt. III 797 [TM 7856]; P. Tebt. IV 1095 [TM 3762]; P. Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763]; P. Tebt. IV 1098 [TM 3908]; P.
Texas inv. 6 [TM 131719]; P. Würzb. 5 [TM 5533]; P. Yale IV 140 [TM 873595]; P. Yale IV 141 [TM 873596]; P. Yale
IV 144 [TM 873599]; P. Yale IV 147 [TM 873587]; PSI XV 1514 [TM 8071]; PUG IV 141 [TM 703033]; SB V 8033 [TM
5706]; SB VI 9420 [TM 5774]; SB VIII 9792 [TM 5794]; SB XVI 12468 [TM 4127]; SB XVIII 13092 [TM 2519]; SB XVIII
13099 [TM 2526]; SB XVIII 13253 [TM 2538]; SB XXIV 15938 [TM 3077]; UPZ I 17 [TM 3408]; UPZ I 24 [TM 3415];
53 [TM 3444].
14 petitions ask to make the other party hand over immovables: BGU VI 1244 [TM 4405];
BGU VIII 1823 [TM 4902]; BGU VIII 1826 [TM 4905]; BGU VIII 1844 [TM 4923]; P. Dryton 34 [TM 284]; P. Merton I 5
[TM 5238]; P. Tebt. III 780 Ro col. ii [TM 5368]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 [TM 3561]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 bis l. 8-33 [TM
3562]; P. Tor. Choach. 12 col. i l. 14 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 3563]; P. Yale IV 142 [TM 873597]; PSI XV 1512 [TM 44214];
SB VI 9108 [TM 5728]; SB XVIII 13099 [TM 2526].
- 14 texts ask to forbid the other party from bothering (παρενοχλέω, περισπάω) the
petitioner: BGU VIII 1828 [TM 4907]; BGU VIII 1829 [TM 4908]; BGU VIII 1830 [TM 4909]; BGU VIII 1851 [TM
4930]; BGU XX 2845 [TM 316208]; P. Dion. 11 [TM 3094]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 382 [TM 3079]; P. Tarich. 5 g col. i l. 1 - col.
ii l. 18 [TM 316246]; P. Tor. Choach. 4 [TM 3593]; P. Tor. Choach. 5 a [TM 3594]; P. Tor. Choach. 5 b [TM 3595]; SB
XVIII 13093 [TM 2520]; SB XXIV 15938 [TM 3077]; UPZ I 124 [TM 3516].
- 7 texts ask to forbid the other party from exacting payments (πράσσω) from the
petitioner: P. Köln Gr. XIII 521 [TM 219337]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 578 [TM 5298]; P. Tor. Choach. 4 [TM 3593]; P. Tor.
Choach. 5 a [TM 3594]; P. Tor. Choach. 5 b [TM 3595]; SB XX 15068 [TM 8124]; SB XXVIII 17175 [TM 44526].
- 2 texts ask to forbid the other party from laying hands (ἐπιβάλλω τὰς χεῖρας) on
the petitioner or some property: P. Petrie III 36 c [TM 7435]; P. Tarich. 6 b [TM 316248].
- 2 texts ask to forbid the other party from trespassing (εἰσβιάζομαι, ἐπιβαίνω) on
some property: P. Tebt. III 775 [TM 5366]; P. Tebt. III 786 [TM 5372].
- 8 texts use other expressions: BGU VIII 1818 [TM 4897]; BGU VIII 1867 [TM 4946]; CPR XXVIII 11 [TM
117591]; P. Dion. 12 l. 6-21 [TM 3095]; P. Petrie III 32 a [TM 7422]; P. Tebt. III 786 [TM 5372]; P. Turku 2 + P. Turku
3 Ro [TM 41560]; SB XVIII 13095 [TM 2522].
Some of these petitions only ask for temporary protection, until an examination or
judgement of their case has taken place (P. Köln Gr. XIII 521 [TM 219337]; P. Petrie
III 36 c [TM 7435]; P. Tarich 5 g col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18 [TM 316246]; P. Tarich. 6 b [TM
316248]), or until the harvest (BGU VIII 1818 [TM 4897]; P. Dion. 11 [TM 3094]; P.
Dion. 12 l. 6-21 [TM 3095]).
15 petitions ask to make the other party do justice (τὸ δίκαιον / τὰ δίκαια ποιέω /
ὑπέχω) to the petitioner: P. Duke inv. 360 [TM 58468]; P. Giss. Univ. I 1 [TM 44587]; P. Köln Gr. X 413 [TM
47274]; P. Louvre II 98 [TM 88764]; P. Petrie III 29 c [TM 7413]; P. Polit. Iud. 3 [TM 44619]; P. Polit. Iud. 7 [TM
44623]; P. Polit. Iud. 8 [TM 44624]; P. Polit. Iud. 15 [TM 44631]; P. Tor. Amen. 8 [TM 3598]; P. Yale IV 139 [TM
873594]; SB X 10271 Ro [TM 5801]; UPZ I 2 [TM 3393]; UPZ I 7 [TM 3398]; UPZ I 123 [TM 3515].
12 petitions ask to (temporarily) seize or block some property: BGU VI 1253 [TM 7325]; BGU
VIII 1761 l. 5-16 [TM 4842]; BGU VIII 1827 [TM 4906]; BGU VIII 1851 [TM 4930]; BGU VIII 1854 [TM 4933]; P. Diosk.
5 [TM 44721]; P. Mich. XVIII 779 [TM 8773]; P. Tarich. 8 [TM 316250]; P. Tebt. I 53 [TM 3689]; P. Tebt. III 772 [TM
5364]; SB VIII 9792 [TM 5794]; SB XVIII 13092 [TM 2519].
1 petition asks to put an end to the seizure or blocking of some property: BGU VIII 1836
[TM 4915].
11 petitions ask to release the petitioners from detention: BGU VIII 1821 [TM 4900]; BGU VIII
1847 [TM 4926]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 378 [TM 3075]; P. Petrie III 36 a Ro [TM 7701]; P. Petrie III 36 a Vo [TM 7433]; P.
Polit. Iud. 2 [TM 44618]; P. Tarich. 1 [TM 316241]; P. Tarich. 2 [TM 316242]; P. Tarich. 13 [TM 316256]; P. Tebt. III
777 [TM 7852]; SB XXIV 16285 [TM 8808].
2 petitions ask to release associates of the petitioners from detention: P. Petrie III 36 b
col. i-ii [TM 7434]; SB XXVI 16743 [TM 4188].
10. Requests for release of a mortgage
P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. Eleph. Dem. 10 [TM 44603] asks to release a mortgage.
11. Requests for release from liturgical obligations
In BGU VI 1256 [TM 4543], the petitioner asks to be released from the lampadarchy.
4 petitions ask to initiate proceedings before the chrematistai: P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM
5038]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138]; P. Mich. XVIII 778 [TM 8772]; P. Tarich. 5 g col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18 [TM 316246].
16 petitions make requests for justice (δίκαιον / δίκαια: 14 texts) or assistance

(ἀντίληψις: 2 texts), which are closely related to the concluding appeals to justice
and assistance that can be found in several petitions: BGU IV 1187 [TM 4524]; BGU VIII 1849
[TM 4928]; CPJ IV 577 [TM 851556]; P. Bingen 44 [TM 78024]; P. Mich. XVIII 773 [TM 8767]; P. Polit. Iud. 6 [TM
44622]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 577 [TM 5297]; P. Tebt. I 183 [TM 3816]; P. Tebt. III 785 [TM 5371]; P. Tor. Amen. 7 [TM 3597];
P. Yale IV 138 [TM 873593]; P. Yale IV 146 [TM 873586]; PSI III 166 [TM 8354]; PSI XV 1514 [TM 8071]; SB VI 9123
[TM 6196]; SB XXVIII 17157 [TM 133350].
11 petitions ask to treat (διεξάγω - διεξαγωγή) the petitioners’ case:165 P. Amh. Gr. II 35
[TM 8621]; P. Diosk. 5 [TM 44721]; P. Dryton 33 bis [TM 252]; P. Grenf. I 11 + P. Heid. Gr. 1288 col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 5
[TM 247]; P. Tarich. 5 g col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18 [TM 316246]; P. Tarich. 5 g col. ii l. 19 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 316246]; P.
Tarich. 6 b [TM 316248]; P. Tarich. 7 [TM 316249]; P. Yale IV 148 [TM 873588]; SB XVIII 13092 [TM 2519]; SB XVIII
13097 [TM 2524].
6 petitions make other general requests for support: P. Heid. Gr. IX 422 [TM 89277]; P. Tarich.
11 [TM 316254]; P. Tarich. 12 l. 1-5 [TM 316255]; UPZ I 22 [TM 3413]; UPZ I 39 [TM 3430]; UPZ I 40 [TM 3431].
14. Other requests, attested exclusively in later ὑπομνήματα
attested in later ὑπομνήματα:
- 19 texts ask to forward (ὑποτάσσω / προσυποτάσσω) (a copy of) the submitted

petition to other authorities:166 BGU III 1012 [TM 5553]; BGU VI 1256 [TM 4543]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 91 [TM
3918]; P. Tebt. I 38 l. 10-28 [TM 3674]; P. Tebt. I 41 [TM 78772]; P. Tebt. I 44 [TM 3680]; P. Tebt. I 45 [TM 3681]; P.
Tebt. I 46 [TM 3682]; P. Tebt. I 47 [TM 3683]; P. Tebt. I 49 [TM 3685]; P. Tebt. I 50 [TM 3686]; P. Tebt. I 53 [TM
3689]; P. Tebt. I 264 [TM 3893]; P. Tebt. IV 1095 [TM 3762]; P. Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763]; P. Tebt. IV 1097 [TM 3907];
PSI XV 1514 [TM 8071]; SB X 10253 [TM 5798]; SB XII 10770 [TM 4345].
- 18 texts ask to secure (ἀσφαλίζομαι, συνέχω) the accused:167 BGU VIII 1824 [TM 4903]; P.
Diosk. 3 [TM 44719]; P. Diosk. 4 [TM 44720]; P. Diosk. 5 [TM 44721]; P. Diosk. 6 l. 7-50 [TM 44722]; P. Diosk. 8 [TM
43832]; P. Hels. I 2 [TM 5139]; P. Lips. II 126 [TM 78441]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 68 [TM 5286]; P. Tebt. II 283 [TM 42986]; P.
Tebt. III 798 [TM 7857]; P. Tebt. III 800 [TM 5383]; P. Tebt. III 960 [TM 7988]; P. Tebt. Pad. 10 [TM 412064]; PSI XV
1514 [TM 8071]; SB III 6002 [TM 5645]; SB VIII 9792 [TM 5794]; SB X 10253 [TM 5798].
- 9 texts ask to enter the submitted petition in the official records (κατατάσσω /
καταχωρίζω ἐν χρηματισμῶι; ἵνʼ ὑπάρχηι ἐν χρηματισμῶι):168 P. Amh. Gr. II 35 [TM 8621]; P.
165
Διεξάγω - διεξαγωγή appear to be rather general terms for the handling of disputes by the authorities: see
SEMEKA, Ptolemäisches Prozessrecht, p. 73. In certain contexts, the verb may have been used in the sense of “to
bring to an end”: see PESTMAN, ‘The Competence of Greek and Egyptian Tribunals’, p. 269.
166
One non-dispute-related later ὑπόμνημα petition also asks to forward (ὑποτάσσω) a copy of the petition to
other authorities: SB XVIII 13735 [TM 2598]. For this type of requests, see UEBEL, ‘Leipziger Fragmente zu P. Jen.
Inv. 77-79’, p. 41.
167
It is not always clear whether this means that the accused has to be arrested: cf. HELMIS, Crime et châtiment dans
l'Égypte ptolémaïque, p. 167-168. P. Diosk. 5 [TM 44721] asks to secure illegal donkey skins together with the
accussed (συνεχέσθω ὅ τε ἄνθρωπος καὶ τὰ φορτία), and SB VIII 9792 [TM 5794] asks to secure a stolen donkey
(ἀσφαλισθέντος τοῦ τε Ἀσῶτος καὶ τοῦ ὄνου).
168
Cf. KELLY, ‘Petitions with Requests for Registration from Roman Egypt’, p. 409-413. One non-dispute-related
later ὑπόμνημα petition (SB XVIII 13735 [TM 2598]), one later ὑπόμνημα petition of uncertain nature (SB XIV
11626 [TM 4255]) and several declarations of property (see below, p. 137) also ask for registration in the official
records. One Ptolemaic example of such an official register of documents is preserved: P. Tebt. III 793 [TM 5379].
Presumably, this registration procedure enabled individuals to secure information that could serve as evidence
in possible future proceedings. In P. Amh. II 35 [TM 8621], such purpose is explicitly stated: ἀξιοῦμεν ἐὰν
φαίνηται συντάξαι καταχωρίσαι ἡμῶν τὸ ὑπόμνημα παρὰ σοὶ ἐν χρηματισμῶι πρὸς τὴν ἐσομένην ἡμῖν πρὸς τὸν
Πετεσοῦχον τὸν λεσῶνιν κατάστασιν (“We ask you, if it seems good, to order to enter our hypomnema in the
official records, in view of our coming lawsuit against Petesouchos the lesonis”). KELLY (‘Petitions with Requests
for Registration from Roman Egypt’) argues that petitions from 2nd and 3rd century AD Egypt with requests for
registration served a similar purpose. Presumably, the submission of notifications of crime and loss without
requests (cf. p. 138-139, 167, 199-200), and the statement pȝy(=y) mḳmḳ (n-)mtw=k n/r mtr (“my petition is with
you for a witness”), which can be found at the end of three mḳmḳ petitions from the Siut archive (P. BM Siut
10598 [TM 43409]; P. BM Siut 10599 [TM 48653]; P. BM Siut 10600 [TM 44188]), can also be understood in this
context.
Diosk. 1 [TM 44717]; P. Münch. III 50 [TM 5249]; P. Tebt. I 44 [TM 3680]; P. Tebt. I 49 [TM 3685]; P. Tebt. I 264 [TM
3893]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. vi l. 19-26 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 10-16 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. IV 1097 [TM
3907].
- 8 texts ask to add a subscription to the submitted petition (περὶ ἑκάστων

ὑπογραφὴν ποιέω):169 P. Tebt. I 38 l. 10-28 [TM 3674]; P. Tebt. I 45 [TM 3681]; P. Tebt. I 46 [TM 3682]; P.
Tebt. I 47 [TM 3683]; P. Tebt. I 50 [TM 3686]; P. Tebt. IV 1095 [TM 3762]; P. Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763]; P. Tebt. IV
1097 [TM 3907].
- 8 texts ask to search (ἀναζητέω, ἐκζητέω, ἐπιζητέω) the culprits: BGU VIII 1857 [TM
4936]; P. Dion. 10 [TM 3093]; P. Köln Gr. V 216 [TM 2482]; P. Köln Gr. VI 272 [TM 3202]; P. Oxy. XII 1465 [TM
43902]; P. Sal. Gr. 2 [TM 495485]; P. Tebt. I 53 [TM 3689]; P. Würzb. 5 [TM 5533].
- 4 texts ask to inform other authorities of certain matters: P. Heid. Gr. IX 423 l. 4-15 [TM
89278]; P. Köln Gr. VI 261 Ro [TM 2486]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 91 [TM 3918]; P. Yale IV 148 [TM 873588]; SB XXII 15762
[TM 43001].
- 3 texts ask to postpone proceedings before the chrematistai or laokritai court: BGU
VIII 1825 [TM 4904]; P. Tebt. I 29 [TM 78767]; SB XXVIII 16874 [TM 133400].
- 3 texts ask to send swordsmen (μαχαιροφόροι) in order to assist during certain

actions: P. Louvre II 98 [TM 88764]; P. Monts. Roca IV 66 [TM 219243]; P. Tebt. III 962 [TM 7989].
- BGU IV 1190 [TM 4525] asks to deduct the debts of a soldier from his salary.
- BGU VIII 1851 [TM 4930] asks to collect the crown-tax from the previous owner of
a certain kleros rather than from the petitioner.
- P. Diosk. 6 l. 1-6 [TM 44722] is a brief petition to the phrourarch accompanying a

copy of a longer petition to the strategos (P. Diosk. 6 l. 7-50), in which the
phrourarch is simply asked to look after what is described and requested in the
longer petition (προνοιηθῆναι περὶ τῶν ἐν α̣ὐ̣τ̣ῶ̣ι δεδηλομένων).
- P. Dryton 31 [TM 286] asks to issue a diagraphe regarding a sale of some of the
petitioner’s land.170
- P. Dryton 33 bis [TM 252] asks to bring the petitioners’ case before the strategos
instead of the laokritai court.
- P. Mich. III 173 [TM 8337] asks to make the other party redeem their pledges or - if
they are unable to do so - to forbid them to bring suit against the petitioner
concerning these pledges in the future.
- P. Polit. Iud. 10 [TM 44626] asks to make the other party fulfill her obligations
towards the petitioner stipulated in a working contract.
- P. Tarich. 7 [TM 316249] asks to send for an official report from the basilikos
grammateus.
169
These requests are always combined with requests to forward (a copy of) the submitted petition to other
authorities.
170
One non-dispute-related later ὑπόμνημα petition (BGU XVIII 2731 [TM 69805]) also asks to issue a διαγραφή.
- P. Tebt. I 50 [TM 3686] asks to make the other party stop blocking a water conduit
leading to the petitioner’s fields.
- P. Tebt. III 776 [TM 7851] asks to prevent a house that was already mortgaged in
order to secure the petitioner’s interests from being accepted as a security for a tax
farmer.
- In SB V 8033 [TM 5706], a man who claims that a piece of land of his wife was
illegally auctioned by the state asks to make the new owner resell this land to the
petitioner.
- SB XXVIII 16855 [TM 5132] asks to return some runaway slaves to the petitioner.
- In UPZ I 122 [TM 3514], a man who accidentally got caught up in a raid against
bandits asks for permission to safely return to his village.
14 petitions are not dispute-related: six ask for official registration of transfers of
land (1), two concern transfers of tax leases (2), and six make other kinds of
requests (3).
1. Petitions for official registration of transfers of land
Six petitions ask for official registration of transfers of land: P. Iand. VII 134 [TM 5228]; P.
Tebt. I 30 l. 15-21 [TM 3666]; P. Tebt. I 31 l. 15-22 [TM 3667]; P. Tebt. III 808 [TM 5391]; PSI XIII 1316 [TM 5582]; SB
XVI 12720 [TM 4148].
In P. Iand. VII 134 [TM 5228], P. Tebt. III 808 [TM 5391] and PSI XIII 1316 [TM 5582],
the petitioner has ceded land to another party; in P. Tebt. I 30 l. 15-21 [TM 3666] and
P. Tebt. I 31 l. 15-22 [TM 3667], another party has ceded land to the petitioner; SB
XVI 12720 [TM 4148], finally, concerns an exchange of land. In four cases, the
registration is expressed with the verb ἀναγράφω.
2. Petitions concerning transfers of tax leases
Two petitions concern tax leases: P. Heid. Gr. VI 379 [TM 3076]; P. Hels. I 9 [TM 5144].
P. Heid. Gr. VI 379 [TM 3076] asks to transfer a tax lease from another party to the
petitioner, and P. Hels. I 9 [TM 5144] asks to confirm a transfer of a tax lease from
the petitioners to another party.
3. Other petitions
The remaining six petitions are of different nature:

- In BGU VIII 1747 l. 18-28 [TM 4829], a group of hippeis requests fodder for their
horses.
- BGU XVIII 2731 [TM 69805] asks to issue a diagraphe regarding an acquisition of
two houses.171
- In Chrest. Wilck. 304 [TM 41800], a group of royal farmers asks for an advance
payment for their kroton.
- In P. Dryton 32 [TM 287], the military officer Dryton complains that he always runs
(unspecified) risks when travelling to his plots of land. Except for the introductory
verb ἀξιῶ, nothing of the request is preserved, but presumably Dryton asked to be
stationed in another place.172
- In P. Tebt. I 40 [TM 3676], a tax farmer asks the basilikos grammateus to send a
letter to the authorities of Kerkeosiris to force the inhabitants of the village “to
follow the ancient traditions” (κατακολουθεῖν τοῖς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐθισμοῖς). Clearly, this
is a petition for patronage.173
- In SB XVIII 13735 [TM 2598], a landowner from Attinou Isieion asks the
komogrammateus to order other landowners and farmers from the same area to
help him with the maintenance of dykes and channels, in order to avoid a breach.
Further, he asks to forward (ὑποτάσσω) a copy of the petition to other authorities,
in order to have it entered in the official records (ἵνʼ ὑπάρχηι ἐν χρ[ημα]τισμῶι).
3.4.3. Fragmentary or incompletely published petitions of uncertain nature
57 later ὑπομνήματα are so fragmentary or incompletely published that their

context cannot be adequately assessed: BGU VIII 1838 [TM 4917]; BGU VIII 1840 [TM 4919]; BGU VIII
1841 [TM 4920]; BGU VIII 1852 [TM 4931]; BGU VIII 1853 [TM 4932]; BGU VIII 1863 [TM 4942]; BGU VIII 1864 Ro
col. i [TM 4943]; BGU VIII 1865 [TM 4944]; O. Mus. Hist. nat. Lyon inv. 807 + O. Ashm. Shelt. 42 [TM 58182]; P.
Athen. 7 [TM 44007]; P. Diosk. 10 [TM 44725]; P. Duke inv. 325 [TM 131855]; P. Duke inv. 327 [TM 131856]; P. Duke
inv. 331 [TM 131860]; P. Fouad 16 [TM 5093]; P. Giss. Univ. I 6 [TM 8176]; P. Giss. Univ. I 7 [TM 8177]; P. Giss. Univ.
I 8 [TM 43259]; P. Grad. 18 [TM 5128]; P. Hal. Kurth inv. II.b 3 Vo [TM 383463]; P. Köln Gr. V 223 [TM 3184]; P. Mil.
Vogl. III 128 [TM 5247]; P. Petrie III 29 f [TM 7416]; P. Petrie III 29 g [TM 7417]; P. Petrie III 29 h [TM 7418]; P.
Petrie III 32 d [TM 7425]; P. Petrie III 32 e [TM 4440]; P. Petrie III 73 [TM 7529]; P. Prag. II 124 [TM 8823]; P. Rainer
Cent. 53 [TM 5268]; P. Rainer Cent. 55 [TM 5269]; P. Rainer Cent. 56 [TM 8608]; P. Strasb. Gr. VIII 702 [TM 3964]; P.
TCD Pap. Gr. env. 127 [TM 380607]; P. Tebt. I 134 [TM 3770]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. iii l. 19 - col. iv l. 6 [TM 5379]; P.
Tebt. III 963 [TM 7990]; P. Tebt. III 965 [TM 5477]; P. Tebt. III 966 [TM 5478]; P. Tebt. III 967 [TM 7991]; P. Tebt.
Pad. 15 [TM 412069]; P. Turku 36 [TM 41501]; P. UB Trier S 188-44 [TM 111679]; P. Yale IV 149 [TM 873589]; PSI
VIII 949 [TM 41455]; PUG III 112 [TM 43240]; SB V 8009 [TM 6293]; SB X 10225 [TM 5913]; SB XII 10869 [TM 4376];
171
For the nature of this διαγραφή, see ARMONI, ‘Review of P. Sarischouli’, p. 318-320. One dispute-related later
ὑπόμνημα petition (P. Dryton 31 [TM 286]) also asks to issue a διαγραφή.
172
Cf. VANDORPE in P. Dryton, p. 231-232.
173
Cf. GRENFELL, HUNT & SMYLY in P. Tebt. I, p. 140-141.
SB XIV 11367 [TM 4233]; SB XIV 11626 [TM 4255]; SB XIV 11745 Ro [TM 4259]; SB XVI 12552 [TM 4137]; SB XX
14083 [TM 7873]; SB XX 14420 [TM 7897]; SB XXII 15206 [TM 43138]; SB XXVI 16744 [TM 41489].
Some of these documents still contain clearly discernable requests:
- requests to summon (εἰσκαλέομαι) the petitioner: P. Petrie III 29 g [TM 7417]; P. Petrie III 29 h
[TM 7418];
- a request to examine (ἐπισκέπτομαι) the case: P. Petrie III 29 h [TM 7418];
- a request to put an end to the blocking of some property: P. TCD Pap. Gr. env. 127 [TM
380607];
- a request to enter the submitted petition in the official records (καταχωρίζω ἐν

χρηματισμῶι): SB XIV 11626 [TM 4255];
- a request to issue a symbolon for a loan of 21 artabas of wheat: BGU VIII 1853 [TM
174
4932];
- a request to send the police epistates in order to be present during a land

measurement: P. Tebt. III 793 col. iii l. 19 - col. iv l. 6 [TM 5379].
4. LATER ὑπομνήματα WITHOUT PETITIONING FUNCTION
4.1. List
BGU VI 1251 4541 155 / Arsinoites village epistates

144 BC
BGU VIII 4940 64 - 44 Herakleopolites strategos / officials of the
1861 BC controller of Herakleopolites
revenues (?)
BGU XVIII 69806 ca. 87 - Herakleopolites basilikos Peteimouthes
2732 l. 1-9 85 BC grammateus and Harchebis
BGU XVIII 69806 ca. 87 - Herakleopolites strategos Peteimouthes designated as
2732 l. 10-24 85 BC and Harchebis ὑπόμνημα
CdE 42 p. 115834 240 / unclear unclear inscription in
355-359 230 BC stone
Chrest. 41799 209 BC Arsinoites epimeletes Apollonios
Wilck. 224 a epimeletes
Chrest. 8699 209 BC Arsinoites epimeletes Apollonios
Wilck. 224 b epimeletes
Chrest. 8700 209 - Arsinoites epimeletes Apollonios
Wilck. 224 c 208 BC epimeletes
174
For the nature of this σύμβολον, see SCHUBART & SCHÄFER in BGU VIII, p. 131.
O. Strasb. I 44031 2nd Peri Thebas tax farmers written on

772 century (ἐξειληφότες τὴν ostrakon
BC ἕκτην τῶν
ἀκροδρύων)
P. Berl. Zill. 1 5563 155 BC Herakleopolites king + queen Dioskourides
e dioiketes
P. Eleph. Gr. 5842 224 - Apollonopolites praktor of the Milon praktor
8 223 BC? temples
P. Eleph. Gr. 5853 223 - Apollonopolites praktor of the Milon praktor
20 222 BC temples
P. Eleph. Gr. 5856 ca. 223 - Apollonopolites praktor of the Milon praktor
24 222 BC temples
P. Eleph. Gr. 5857 ca. 223 - Apollonopolites praktor of the Milon praktor
25 222 BC temples
P. Heid. Gr. 41532 209 - Arsinoites oikonomos
VII 390 208 BC
P. Heid. Gr. 78356 ca. 225 - unclear unclear
VII 391 175 BC
P. Heid. Gr. 8701 209 BC Arsinoites epimeletes Apollonios
VII 392 epimeletes
P. Heid. Gr. 78357 214 BC Memphites archiphylakites
VII 394
P. Heid. Gr. 47290 186 BC? Herakleopolites eisagogeus of the court of
VIII 412 dikasterion Herakleopolis
P. Hels. I 10 5145 163 BC Herakleopolites oikonomos oikonomoi of
Herakleopolites
Herakleopolites
P. Hels. I 12 5147 163 BC Herakleopolites oikonomos oikonomoi of designated as
Herakleopolites ὑπόμνημα
Herakleopolites
Herakleopolites
Herakleopolites
Herakleopolites
Herakleopolites
Herakleopolites
Herakleopolites
P. Hels. I 20 5155 ca. 163 Herakleopolites oikonomos oikonomoi of
BC Herakleopolites
Herakleopolites
P. Hels. I 37 5172 ca. 159 Herakleopolites oikonomos oikonomoi of
BC Herakleopolites
P. Köln Gr. 41533 232 BC Arsinoites oikonomos Dionysodoros designated as
VIII 341 l. 1-6 subordinate of ὑπόμνημα;
the oikonomos possibly early
ὑπόμνημα
P. Lond. VII 251 ca. 149 Pathyrites hypodioiketes temple of

2188 l. 284- BC Pathyris
304
P. Merton II 5240 154 / Arsinoites chrematistai
59 l. 11-28 143 BC
P. Mich. 8771 193 BC Arsinoites oikonomos Peteminis
XVIII 777 topogrammateus
P. Mich. 8774 205 - Arsinoites unclear Peteminis
XVIII 780 a 204 BC? topogrammateus
P. Petrie III 7423 221 - Arsinoites oikonomos
32 b 205 BC
36 b col. iv
P. Petrie III 7518 223 / Arsinoites oikonomos
68 a 222 BC
P. Petrie III 7519 222 BC? Arsinoites unclear
68 b
P. Petrie III 7525 209 BC Arsinoites basilikos
72 a grammateus
P. Petrie III 7526 222 BC Arsinoites oikonomos same
72 b l. 3-10 document as
P. Petrie III 72
b l. 11-18,
except for
different
addressee
P. Petrie III 7526 222 BC Arsinoites topogrammateus same
72 b l. 11-18 document as
P. Petrie III 72
b l. 3-10,
except for
different
addressee
P. Sijpesteijn 7883 197 BC Arsinoites dioiketes designated as
45 l. 6-32 ὑπόμνημα
P. Strasb. Gr. 3952 ca. 145 Hermopolites basilikos
VII 624 BC grammateus
P. Tarich. 10 316253 184 BC Arsinoites epimeletes taricheutai of
Tanis
P. Tebt. III 5315 ca. 210 Alexandria (?) oikonomos (?) designated as
703 BC ὑπόμνημα
P. Tebt. III 7836 ca. 200 - Arsinoites dioiketes (?)
725 175 BC
P. Tebt. III 5344 187 - Arsinoites epimeletes sitologoi of designated as
741 l. 14-25 186 BC Herakleides ὑπόμνημα
P. Tebt. III 5379 183 BC Arsinoites unclear
793 col. vi l.
1-12
P. Tebt. III 5379 183 BC Arsinoites unclear designated as
793 col. viii l. προσάγγελμα
4-9
P. Tebt. III 5389 139 BC Arsinoites basilikos
806 grammateus
P. Tebt. III 5393 192 - Herakleopolites tax farmers

812 191 BC (ἐξειληφότες τὸ
ἐγκύκλιον)
PUG III 101 5594 221 BC? Arsinoites archiphylakites
PUG III 102 5595 221 BC? Arsinoites archiphylakites
PUG III 103 5596 219 BC? Arsinoites grammateus Heliodoros in
charge of the oil
charge of the oil
charge of the oil
charge of the oil
SB VIII 9800 a 5957 ca. 275 - Herakleopolites dioiketes
225 BC
SB XIV 11860 4262 2nd / 1st Arsinoites archiphylakites
century
BC
SB XIV 11893 4270 159 BC Arsinoites epimeletes
SB XIV 11968 4291 132 - Arsinoites topogrammateus
131 BC
SB XXII 8511 203 - Arsinoites basilikos designated as
15213 202 / grammateus ὑπόμνημα
179 -
178 BC
SB XXII 43176 2nd / 1st Arsinoites unclear
15324 century
BC
SB XXII 8349 ca. 150 Herakleopolites basilikos
15369 BC grammateus
SB XXIV 41803 209 BC Arsinoites (?) epimeletes Apollonios
16063 epimeletes
SB XXVI 43106 212 BC? unclear basilikos
16417 grammateus
UPZ I 116 3508 209 - Memphites epimeletes
208 BC?
UPZ II 218 3620 131 - Peri Thebas thebarch royal bank of designated as
col. i l. 29-36 130 BC Thebes ὑπόμνημα
UPZ II 220 3622 130 BC Peri Thebas thebarch royal bank of designated as
col. ii l. 1-11 Thebes ὑπόμνημα
UPZ II 222 3624 ca. 131 - Peri Thebas thebarch royal bank of
130 BC Thebes
UPZ II 224 3626 131 BC Peri Thebas thebarch royal bank of
col. iii l. 7-17 Thebes (?)
Total: 74 texts
4.2. Addressees
The later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function are addressed to various

authorities:175
- king Ptolemaios VI and queen Kleopatra II (1 text: P. Berl. Zill. 1 e [TM 5563]);
- officials belonging to the civil administration: the strategos (2 texts; one strategos
is also controller of revenues), the basilikos grammateus (7 texts), the
topogrammateus (2 texts), the village epistates (1 text);
- officials belonging to the financial administration: the dioiketes (3 texts), the

hypodioiketes (1 text), the epimeletes (9 texts), the oikonomos (21 texts), the
thebarch (4 texts), the praktor of the temples (4 texts), tax farmers (2 texts: one to
the ἐξειληφότες τὴν ἕκτην τῶν ἀκροδρύων and another to the ἐξειληφότες τὸ
ἐγκύκλιον);
- police officials: the archiphylakites (4 texts);
- officials belonging to the judiciary: the chrematistai (1 text), the eisagogeus of the
dikasterion (1 text);
- other authorities: unspecified grammateis (4 texts).176
4.3. Form
Structure
The later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function are a rather freely and diversely
structured group of texts. At least 33 of them make a request; at least 22 do not. Five
texts immediately start with the request, without preceding descriptive section.
One exceptional text contains a rhetorical conclusion like those used in petitions,
without making an explicit request. Finally, at least 27 texts contain a closing
formula, whereas at least nine do not.
175
The order of the following overview is roughly based upon that of the Prosopographia Ptolemaica.
176
PUG III 103 [TM 5596], PUG III 104 [TM 5597], PUG III 105 [TM 5598] and PUG III 106 [TM 5599] are addressed to
the unspecified grammateis Menekrates and Dionysodoros. They are asked to write to the responsible for the
distribution of oil (ὁ πρὸς τῆι ἐλαικῆι) Heliodoros; presumably, they were his subordinates.
Prescript
These texts are typically introduced by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος (66
texts). In eight cases, this formula is preceded by the date. BGU VIII 1861 [TM 4940]
exceptionally uses the prescript παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος, without indication of the
addressee. This abridged prescript can also be found in a couple of petitions that
belong to the same archive as BGU VIII 1861 [TM 4940] (see above, p. 111). Except for
their prescript, these documents completely resemble other ὑπομνήματα from the
same archive that do use the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος.
The function of the addressee is indicated in all but five texts: CdE 42 p. 355-359 [TM
115834] (addressed to a certain Eudemos), P. Mich. XVIII 780 a [TM 8774] (addressed
to a certain Diophantos), P. Petrie III 68 b [TM 7519] (addressed to a certain
Apollonios), PUG III 103 [TM 5596] and PUG III 105 [TM 5598] (both addressed to a
certain Menekrates, who can be identified as grammateus on the basis of other
sources). The addressee of SB XXII 15324 [TM 43176] is identified as τῶι κυρίωι,
without a name or additional titles. As expected, the chrematistai addressed in P.
Merton II 59 l. 11-28 [TM 5240] are not identified by their individual names, but by
the name of their eisagogeus.
In five texts, the prescript does not only identify the addressee with his regular title,
but also with an honorific aulic title. These texts are addressed to the thebarch and
strategos: the thebarch is identified as ἀρχισωματοφύλαξ (UPZ II 222 [TM 3624]) and
τῶν ἀρχισωματοφυλάκων (UPZ II 218 col. i l. 29-36 [TM 3620]; UPZ II 220 col. ii l. 1-
11 [TM 3622]; UPZ II 224 col. iii l. 7-17 [TM 3626]), the strategos as συγγενής (BGU
XVIII 2732 l. 10-24 [TM 69806]). Similar honorific titles can be found in the
prescripts of later ὑπόμνημα petitions to high officials, starting from the 180’s BC
(see above, p. 111).
Six texts are introduced by genitive absolute constructions, three by date

indications, three by the conjunctions ἐπεί and ἐπειδή, two by the verb
προσαγγέλλω, and one by the petitioning formula ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό (CdE 42 p. 355-359
[TM 115834]: see below, p. 139). Further, several texts are introduced by a form of
ἀπογράφομαι (25 texts) or ὑφίσταμαι (9 texts): these introductions are mostly found
in declarations of property (21 texts with ἀπογράφομαι) and offers for immovables
and concessions auctioned by the state (6 texts with ὑφίσταμαι). In five cases, the
body of the text immediately starts with a request. Various expressions are used at
the start of the remaining texts.
27 texts introduce requests with ἀξιῶ, and four texts formulate the request in the
imperative form, without real introductory formula. Eight texts add the polite
expression ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται to the request, 6 times in combination with ἀξιῶ, and
twice in combination with requests in the imperative form.
Curiously, SB XIV 11968 [TM 4291] inserts a rhetorical conclusion before the closing:
[τού]τ̣ου δὲ γενομένου ἔσομαι ἀσυκο[φάν]τ̣ητος καὶ οὐθὲν τῶν εἰ[ς] τὸ [βασι]λ̣ικὸν
χ̣ρησ̣ίμων διαπ̣εσ̣ε̣ῖ̣τ̣α̣ι̣ (“If this happens, I will not be falsely charged and nothing of
what is useful to the treasury will be lost”). Normally, formulas like this only appear
in petitions (see, for example, the very similar conclusions of P. Dion. 11 [TM 3094]
and P. Dion. 12 l. 6-21 [TM 3095]), but SB XIV 11968 [TM 4291] cannot be categorised
as a petition, because the text does not make an explicit request. Implicitly, the
submitter of this ὑπόμνημα does seek an intervention by the addressee, however
(see below, p. 140-141); [τού]τ̣ου δὲ γενομένου in the conclusion refers to that
implicit wish.
Closing formula
15 texts are closed by εὐτύχει (in seven cases followed by the date), one by ἔρρωσο,
and 11 by the date alone.
4.4. Content
All 74 later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function are communications to the

authorities that focus on a single subject. Many of them contain requests, but these
requests seem so ordinary that the documents cannot qualify as petitions. In what
follows, the content of these texts is examined in further detail. First, three specific
groups of documents are discussed: (1) declarations of property, (2) offers for
immovables and concessions auctioned by the state and (3) notifications of crime
without request. Next, the remaining ὑπομνήματα are briefly surveyed (4).
4.4.1. Declarations of property
More than a third of the later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function (29 out of
74 texts) are declarations of property:177 Chrest. Wilck. 224 a [TM 41799]; Chrest. Wilck. 224 b [TM
8699]; Chrest. Wilck. 224 c [TM 8700]; O. Strasb. I 772 [TM 44031]; P. Heid. Gr. VII 390 [TM 41532]; P. Heid. Gr. VII
391 [TM 78356]; P. Heid. Gr. VII 392 [TM 8701]; P. Hels. I 10 [TM 5145]; P. Hels. I 11 [TM 5146]; P. Hels. I 12 [TM
5147]; P. Hels. I 13 [TM 5148]; P. Hels. I 14 [TM 5149]; P. Hels. I 15 [TM 5150]; P. Hels. I 16 [TM 5151]; P. Hels. I 17
[TM 5152]; P. Hels. I 18 [TM 5153]; P. Hels. I 19 [TM 5154]; P. Hels. I 20 [TM 5155]; P. Petrie III 68 b [TM 7519]; P.
Petrie III 72 a [TM 7525]; P. Petrie III 72 b l. 3-10 [TM 7526]; P. Petrie III 72 b l. 11-18 [TM 7526]; P. Tebt. III 806 [TM
5389]; SB XIV 11893 [TM 4270]; SB XXII 15213 [TM 8511]; SB XXII 15369 [TM 8349]; SB XXIV 16063 [TM 41803]; SB
XXVI 16417 [TM 43106]; UPZ I 116 [TM 3508].
Declarations of property, submitted by private persons to the authorities for tax

purposes, constitute a well-known type of documents from Graeco-Roman Egypt.178
From the late 3rd century BC up till the Roman period, these documents were
composed in the ὑπόμνημα format. The earliest declarations of property in this
format date from 222 BC (P. Petrie III 68 b [TM 7519]; P. Petrie III 72 b l. 3-10 [TM
7526] and P. Petrie III 72 b l. 11-18 [TM 7526]). Before this period, declarations of
property were composed in various other forms.179
The 29 declarations listed above are addressed to various financial officials: the
oikonomos (13 texts), the epimeletes (7 texts), the basilikos grammateus (5 texts),
the topogrammateus (1 text) and a trio of tax farmers (ἐξειληφότες τὴν ἕκτην τῶν
ἀκροδρύων: 1 text). Five of the declarations addressed to the epimeletes (Chrest.
Wilck. 224 a [TM 41799], Chrest. Wilck. 224 b [TM 8699], Chrest. Wilck. 224 c [TM
8700], P. Heid. Gr. VII 392 [TM 8701] and SB XXIV 16063 [TM 41803]) form a special
177
MESSERI SAVORELLI (‘Papiri documentari Viennesi’, p. 33-36 no. 1) interpreted SB XXVI 16417 [TM 43106] as an
offer for auctioned property, but HAGEDORN (‘Bemerkungen zu Urkunden’ [2003], p. 226-227) convincingly
refuted this interpretation. See also ARMONI, Studien zur Verwaltung des Ptolemäischen Ägypten, p. 212-213.
178
For a general discussion of declarations of property in Graeco-Roman Egypt, see AVOGADRO, ‘Le ΑΠΟΓΡΑΦΑΙ di
proprietà nell’Egitto greco-romano’. For Ptolemaic declarations of property, see in particular ARMONI, Studien zur
Verwaltung des Ptolemäischen Ägypten, p. 205-218; FRÖSÉN in P. Hels. I, p. 63-71; PAPATHOMAS in P. Heid. Gr. VII, p. 20-
22.
179
See Chrest. Wilck. 198 [TM 41511] (240 BC); P. Frankf. 5 [TM 5099] (241 - 240 BC); P. Hibeh I 33 [TM 7816] (245
BC); P. Köln Gr. VII 314 [TM 3207] (257 BC); P. Lille Dem. I 12 [TM 4461] (252 - 251 BC; Demotic with Greek
summary); P. Lille Dem. I 13 [TM 4462] (252 - 251 BC; Demotic with Greek summary); P. Lille Dem. I 14 [TM 4463]
(252 - 251 BC; Demotic); P. Lille Dem. I 15 [TM 4464] (252 - 251 BC; Demotic); P. Lille Dem. I 16 [TM 4465] (252 - 251
BC; Demotic); P. Lille Dem. I 17 [TM 4466] (252 - 251 BC; Demotic with Greek summary); P. Lille Dem. I 18 [TM
4467] (251 BC; Demotic with Greek summary); P. Lille Dem. I 19 [TM 4468] (252 - 251 BC; Demotic with Greek
summary); P. Lille Dem. I 20 [TM 4469] (252 - 251 BC; Demotic with Greek summary); P. Petrie III 72 c l. 1-4 [TM
7527] (224 - 223 BC; possibly another type of document); SB I 4307 [TM 7130] (3rd century BC?); SB X 10452 [TM
45906] (251 - 250 BC; Demotic with Greek summary); SB XIV 11308 [TM 4210] (251 BC; possibly another type of
document).
category: they notify the epimeletes of earlier declarations of property submitted to

the oikonomos and basilikos grammateus. 180 SB XIV 11893 [TM 4270], equally
addressed to the epimeletes, appears to be a correction to an earlier declaration of
property (a so-called προσαπογραφή). 181 Μost declarations of property are
introduced by the verb ἀπογράφομαι. At least 14 add an explicit request for
registration in the official records (κατατάσσω / καταχωρίζω ἐν χρηματισμῶι).182 In
Chrest. Wilck. 224 a [TM 41799], the declarant asks the epimeletes for (a)
document(s) so that she can pay her taxes (δ̣οθῆ̣να̣ ̣ι̣ τὰ γ̣ραφέ̣ν̣[τα], ἵνα τάξ[ωμαι] τὰ
καθήκοντα τέλη τού[των]), and in P. Hels. I 13 [TM 5148], the declarant asks to
acknowledge (συνχωρέω) her declaration. At least five declarations do not contain
an explicit request.183
Two of the declarations are explicitly designated as ὑπόμνημα by their authors (P.
Hels. I 12 [TM 5147] and SB XXII 15213 [TM 8511]), and six as ἀπογραφή (P. Hels. I 10
[TM 5145], P. Hels. I 15 [TM 5150], P. Hels. I 18 [TM 5153], P. Hels. I 19 [TM 5154], P.
Hels. I 20 [TM 5155], and P. Tebt. III 806 [TM 5389]). Clearly, these texts were called
ὑπόμνημα on the basis of their form, and ἀπογραφή on the basis of their content.
These two terms continued to be used side by side for declarations of property and
other types of declarations in ὑπόμνημα format during the Roman period.184
4.4.2. Offers for immovables and concessions auctioned by the state
11 later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function are offers for immovables and
concessions auctioned by the state:185
180
PAPATHOMAS in P. Heid. Gr. VII, p. 20-22, 36-37.
181
FRÖSÉN in P. Hels. I, p. 68.
182
P. Hels. I 10 [TM 5145]; P. Hels. I 11 [TM 5146]; P. Hels. I 12 [TM 5147]; P. Hels. I 14 [TM 5149]; P. Hels. I 15 [TM
5150]; P. Hels. I 16 [TM 5151]; P. Hels. I 17 [TM 5152]; P. Hels. I 18 [TM 5153]; P. Hels. I 19 [TM 5154]; P. Hels. I 20
[TM 5155]; P. Tebt. III 806 [TM 5389]; SB XIV 11893 [TM 4270]; SB XXII 15213 [TM 8511]; SB XXII 15369 [TM 8349].
See above, p. 125-126 for later ὑπόμνμα petitions with similar requests.
183
O. Strasb. I 772 [TM 44031]; P. Petrie III 72 b l. 3-10 [TM 7526]; P. Petrie III 72 b l. 11-18 [TM 7526]; UPZ I 116
[TM 3508]. P. Heid. Gr. VII 392 [TM 8701] and P. Hels. I 16 [TM 5151] contain fragmentary requests of which only
the introductory verb is preserved. The remaining declarations are too fragmentary to know whether they
made a request or not.
184
Cf. AVOGADRO, ‘Le ΑΠΟΓΡΑΦΑΙ di proprietà nell’Egitto greco-romano’, p. 131; BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken
Urkundengeschichte. II’, p. 24-25. During the Roman period, the term προσάγγελμα was also used for
declarations of property: see chapter VI, p. 218.
185
Recent discussions of these documents and state auctions in general can be found in ARMONI, Studien zur
Verwaltung des Ptolemäischen Ägypten, p. 106-171; ARMONI in P. Tarich., p. 94-95; HOGAN, ‘The Auction of Pharaoh
Revisited’; JAKAB, ‘Auctions and Ownership in Ptolemaic Egypt’. For similar offers in Demotic, formatted as
letters and addressed to the temple administration rather than the state, see ARLT, ‘The Temple Administration
in Ptolemaic Soknopaiou Nesos’; DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 321-323.
- P. Eleph. Gr. 20 [TM 5853], P. Eleph. Gr. 25 [TM 5857], P. Lond. VII 2188 l. 284-304
[TM 251], UPZ II 218 col. i l. 29-36 [TM 3620], UPZ II 220 col. ii l. 1-11 [TM 3622] and
UPZ II 222 [TM 3624] are offers for land and other immovables;
- P. Petrie III 68 a [TM 7518] and UPZ II 224 col. iii l. 7-17 [TM 3626] are offers for tax
leases;186
- P. Mich. XVIII 777 [TM 8771] is an offer for the beer concession in Mouchis;
- P. Tarich. 10 [TM 316253] is an offer for a funerary endowment (γέρας ταριχείας /

γέρας ἐνταφιαστικόν) in Philadelpheia;
- P. Eleph. Gr. 24 [TM 5856] is an offer for both immovables and a priestly
endowment (γέρας) in Edfu.
These offers are addressed to the thebarch (4 texts), praktor of the temples (3 texts),
oikonomos (2 texts), hypodioiketes (1 text) and epimeletes (1 text). Most offers are
introduced by the verb ὑφίσταμαι. In two texts (UPZ II 218 col. i l. 29-36 [TM 3620]
and UPZ II 220 col. ii l. 1-11 [TM 3622]), fragmentary requests can be found.187 At
least five texts do not contain explicit requests.188
In accompanying documents, these offers are identified as ὑπόμνημα (UPZ II 220

col. ii l. 1-11 [TM 3622]), ὑπόστασις (UPZ II 224 col. iii l. 7-17 17 [TM 3626]) or both
(UPZ II 218 col. i l. 29-36 [TM 3620]). Just like ἀπογραφή (cf. above), ὑπόστασις refers
to the content of the offers, while ὑπόμνημα refers to their form.
4.4.3. Notifications of crime without request
4 later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function are notifications of crime without

request: BGU VI 1251 [TM 4541]; P. Heid. Gr. VII 394 [TM 78357]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. vi l. 1-12 [TM 5379]; P.
Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 4-9 [TM 5379].
BGU VI 1251 [TM 4541] and P. Heid. Gr. VII 394 [TM 78357] are notifications of
damage to property (illegal grazing), addressed to the village epistates and
archiphylakites, respectively. P. Heid. Gr. VII 394 [TM 78357] is in fact an addition to
an earlier notification, informing the police about the identity of the culprits. 189 P.
186
See also P. Tebt. I 58 [TM 3694] for this kind of ὑπομνήματα, kept (and undoubtedly written) at the
ὑπομνηματογραφεῖον.
187
According to WILCKEN (in UPZ II, p. 271, 279), these offers contained a request to actually proceed to the
auctioning of the property in question.
188
P. Eleph. Gr. 20 [TM 5853]; P. Eleph. Gr. 24 [TM 5856]; P. Eleph. Gr. 25 [TM 5857]; P. Mich. XVIII 777 [TM 8771];
P. Tarich. 10 [TM 316253]. The remaining declarations are too fragmentary to know whether they made a
request or not.
189
For the interpretation of this text, see ARMONI, ‘Bemerkungen zu Urkunden’, p. 169-170.
Tebt. III 793 col. vi l. 1-12 [TM 5379] and P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 4-9 [TM 5379] are
notifications of theft, addressed to an unknown official.190
These documents remind strongly of early προσάγγελμα notifications, a type of

documents that disappeared around the turn of the 3rd / 2nd century BC (see chapter
VI, p. 197-200). Presumably, individuals submitted documents like these in order to
secure information about crimes and disputes that could serve as evidence in
possible future proceedings. Certain later ὑπόμνημα petitions with requests for
registration (see above, p. 125-126) and certain mḳmḳ (see chapter IV, p. 167) appear
to have served a similar function.
4.4.4. Other later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function
The remaining 30 later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function are

communications of various other nature, both with and without requests:191
- BGU VIII 1861 [TM 4940], BGU XVIII 2732 l. 1-9 [TM 69806] and BGU XVIII 2732 l.
10-24 [TM 69806] are requests concerning seed loans issued by the government.
- CdE 42 p. 355-359 [TM 115834] is a fragmentary ὑπόμνημα inscribed on a limestone

block, the purpose of which is hard to determine. The body of the text starts with
the petitioning formula ἀδικοῦμ̣[αι ὑπό, but there does not seem to be enough space
for a request in the lacunas preceding the closing (εὐτύχει).192
- P. Berl. Zill. 1 e [TM 5563] is a message from the strategos of the Herakleopolites to
the king and queen concerning the building of a fortress. Usually, Ptolemaic
communications to the sovereign are formatted as ἐντεύξεις; P. Berl. Zill. 1 e [TM
5563] is the only preserved exception.
- P. Eleph. Gr. 8 [TM 5842] is a report about a funerary tax contractor.
- P. Heid. Gr. VIII 412 [TM 47290] is a so-called ἀναδικία, used to reinstate judicial
proceedings before a dikasterion court after the passing of a default judgement.193
190
Other ὑπομνήματα recorded on P. Tebt. III 793 [TM 5379] are addressed to the komogrammateus and village
epistates.
191
At least 14 of them make a request, but at least ten do not. The remaining texts are too fragmentary to know
whether they made a request or not.
192
For interpretations of this curious text, see THOMPSON, ‘A Ptolemaic Petition on Stone’; REEKMANS, ‘Une
enteuxis ptolémaïque sur pierre’.
193
For ἀναδικίαι, see KALTSAS in P. Heid. Gr. VIII, p. 11-20. For recent assessments of the Ptolemaic dikasterion,
see ARMONI in P. Köln Gr. XIV, p. 32-34; GROTKAMP, Rechtsschutz im hellenistischen Ägypten, p. 24-41; GROTKAMP, ‘The
Ptolemaic dikasterion’; KALTSAS in P. Heid. Gr. VIII, p. 3-9; KRAMER & SÁNCHEZ-MORENO ELLART, Neue Quellen zum
Prozessrecht der Ptolemäerzeit, p. 3-108.
- P. Hels. I 36 [TM 5171] and P. Hels. I 37 [TM 5172] are surety declarations from tax
farmers.
- P. Köln Gr. VIII 341 l. 1-6 [TM 41533] is a fragmentary message with a request for
twenty mattocks.
- P. Merton II 59 l. 11-28 [TM 5240] is an agreement (συγχώρησις) between two

disputing parties in which they reach a compromise (διάλυσις) concerning their
dispute. The two parties submitted this agreement to the chrematistai in order to
have it declared legally valid by the court and in order to end their court procedure.
- P. Mich. XVIII 780 a [TM 8774] is a report about the debts of a holder of the beer
concession.
- P. Petrie III 32 b [TM 7423] is a report from a scribe to his superior, informing him
that he has been imprisoned.
- P. Petrie III 36 b col. iv [TM 7434] and SB VIII 9800 a [TM 5957] are messages by
skippers concerning the state grain transport, with requests for boats.
- P. Sijpesteijn 45 l. 6-32 [TM 7883] is a message from a praktor to the dioiketes

concerning the registration of a sale of a slave.
- P. Strasb. Gr. VII 624 [TM 3952] is a cover letter in ὑπόμνημα format, with which a
βιβλιοφύλαξ forwarded another (lost) ὑπόμνημα to the basilikos grammateus.
- P. Tebt. III 703 [TM 5315] is a lengthy document with instructions concerning the
exercise of official duties, probably addressed by the dioiketes to the oikonomos.194
- P. Tebt. III 725 [TM 7836] is a report from an architekton about losses to state
revenue resulting from neglect of engineering requirements.
- P. Tebt. III 741 l. 14-25 [TM 5344] is a report from a sitologos to the epimeletes.
- P. Tebt. III 812 [TM 5393] is an offer for apprenticeship with a group of tax-farmers.
- PUG III 101 [TM 5594], PUG III 102 [TM 5595] and SB XIV 11860 [TM 4262] are
applications for enrolment in the police.195
- PUG III 103 [TM 5596], PUG III 104 [TM 5597], PUG III 105 [TM 5598] and PUG III 106
[TM 5599] are brief requests by groups of soldiers for their oil allowance.
- SB XIV 11968 [TM 4291] is a complaint by a farmer to the topogrammateus about a

faulty registration of land and a related tax claim. Clearly, he wants the
194
Cf. ROSTOVTZEFF in P. Tebt. III, p. 66-73. A recent discussion of the document, with references to earlier studies,
can be found in SCHORN, ‘Das Idealbild des Beamten in den Papyri der ptolemäischen Zeit’.
195
For similar applications in the Demotic mḳmḳ format, see chapter IV, p. 168.
topogrammateus to adjust this registration, but he does not make this request
explicit. Therefore, the document cannot be viewed as a real petition.196
- SB XXII 15324 [TM 43176] is a message from a σῶμφις (temple dancer)197 to an

unknown individual identified as τῶι κυρίωι. Of the actual message, only some
initial courtesies are preserved. Such courtesies are common in letters, but not in
petitions.
196
For the interpretation of this text, see BAETENS, ‘Some Corrections to Ptolemaic Petitions’, p. 291-292; CLARYSSE,
‘Sur quelques documents ptolémaïques à Giessen’, p. 121.
197
CLARYSSE & SIJPESTEIJN, ‘A Letter from a Dancer of Boubastis’, p. 56-59.
Chapter III: other fragmentary Greek
petitions
Some Greek petitions are so fragmentary that they cannot be safely assigned to a
specific petition type. Probably, all of them are either (royal or non-royal) ἐντεύξεις
or (early or later) ὑπομνήματα.198 In none of these cases, it is clear to whom the
petition is addressed.
1. LIST
IDENTIFICATION TM NO. DATE NOME ARCHIVE POSSIBLE TYPES
BGU III 1004 5551 ca. 227 BC Arsinoites royal ἔντευξις, early
col. i ὑπόμνημα or later
ὑπόμνημα
BGU III 1006 8727 3rd century unclear non-royal ἔντευξις, early
BC? ὑπόμνημα or later
ὑπόμνημα
BGU VI 1245 7321 3rd / 2nd Oxyrhynchites non-royal ἔντευξις, early
century BC ὑπόμνημα or later
ὑπόμνημα
BGU VI 1246 7322 3rd century Omboi till Philai royal ἔντευξις, non-royal
BC ἔντευξις, early ὑπόμνημα
or later ὑπόμνημα
BGU VI 1250 7323 143 - 141 BC Arsinoites royal ἔντευξις or later
ὑπόμνημα
BGU X 1904 8300 ca. 175 - 125 unclear royal ἔντευξις or later
BC ὑπόμνημα
BGU X 1906 8301 ca. 250 - 200 Oxyrhynchites royal ἔντευξις, non-royal
BGU X 1908 8302 ca. 150 - 100 unclear royal ἔντευξις or later
P. Athen. 6 77952 Ptolemaic unclear royal ἔντευξις, non-royal
ἔντευξις, early ὑπόμνημα
P. Bouriant 62 30781 ca. 250 - 200 unclear royal ἔντευξις, non-royal
198
Alternatively, some of them may have been formatted as προσαγγέλματα or ἐπιστολαί, but these formats
were seldom used for petitions: see p. 9, 200.
144 CHAPTER III: OTHER FRAGMENTARY GREEK PETITIONS
P. B.U.G. inv. 703104 ca. 250 - 175 Arsinoites Zenon (?) non-royal ἔντευξις, early
260 BC ὑπόμνημα or later
ὑπόμνημα
P. Cairo Zen. IV 1255 263 - 253 BC Arsinoites Zenon non-royal ἔντευξις or
59623 early ὑπόμνημα
P. Cairo Zen. V 1450 254 - 251 BC Arsinoites Zenon royal ἔντευξις, non-royal
59826 ἔντευξις or early
ὑπόμνημα
P. Col. Zen. II 43255 3rd century unclear non-royal ἔντευξις, early
119 BC? ὑπόμνημα or later
ὑπόμνημα
P. Enteux. A 3388 ca. 225 - 200 Arsinoites royal ἔντευξις, early
BC ὑπόμνημα or later
ὑπόμνημα
P. Grenf. I 37 261 108 BC Pathyrites royal ἔντευξις or later
ὑπόμνημα
P. Gurob 10 43324 3rd century Arsinoites non-royal ἔντευξις, early
ὑπόμνημα
P. Hibeh II 203 5187 246 - 221 BC Herakleopolites non-royal ἔντευξις, early
ὑπόμνημα or later
ὑπόμνημα
P. Köln Gr. VI 3200 ca. 250 - 200 Arsinoites Apollonios royal ἔντευξις, non-royal
270 BC oikonomos (?) ἔντευξις, early ὑπόμνημα
P. Lond. III 887 78481 3rd century unclear non-royal ἔντευξις, early
ὑπόμνημα
P. Lond. VII 1571 246 BC? Arsinoites Zenon non-royal ἔντευξις or
P. Lond. VII 1663 263 - 229 BC Arsinoites Zenon royal ἔντευξις, non-royal
ὑπόμνημα
P. Mich. Zen. 2001 263 - 229 BC Arsinoites Zenon royal ἔντευξις, non-royal
ὑπόμνημα
P. Paris 70 g 78701 Ptolemaic unclear royal ἔντευξις, non-royal
ἔντευξις, early ὑπόμνημα
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 78759 ca. 175 - 125 unclear royal ἔντευξις or later
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 42982 1st century Arsinoites (?) royal ἔντευξις or later
P. Stan. Class. 43272 ca. 225 - 200 Arsinoites royal ἔντευξις, early
11 BC ὑπόμνημα or later
ὑπόμνημα
P. Strasb. Gr. 3958 ca. 115 BC Arsinoites royal ἔντευξις or later
VII 645 ὑπόμνημα
P. Strasb. Gr. 3961 2nd century Oxyrhynchites royal ἔντευξις or later
VII 681 BC (?) ὑπόμνημα
CHAPTER III: OTHER FRAGMENTARY GREEK PETITIONS 145
P. Strasb. Gr. 3963 2nd century unclear royal ἔντευξις or later

VIII 701 BC ὑπόμνημα
P. Tebt. I 230 3863 ca. 125 - 100 Arsinoites Menches royal ἔντευξις or later
BC komogrammateus (?) ὑπόμνημα
P. Tebt. III 783 7853 ca. 175 - 125 Arsinoites royal ἔντευξις or later
P. Tebt. III 953 5469 181 / 157 Arsinoites royal ἔντευξις or later
P. Tebt. III 957 7987 ca. 175 - 125 Arsinoites royal ἔντευξις or later
P. Yale I 56 l. 1- 5540 ca. 100 BC unclear royal ἔντευξις or later
3 ὑπόμνημα
PSI XIV 1403 27051 2nd century unclear royal ἔντευξις or later
PUG III 111 43239 ca. 225 - 200 Arsinoites royal ἔντευξις, early
ὑπόμνημα
SB I 4302 7125 3rd / 2nd unclear royal ἔντευξις, non-royal
century BC ἔντευξις, early ὑπόμνημα
SB VI 9209 inv. 6199 3rd / 2nd unclear non-royal ἔντευξις, early
E. 7152 century BC ὑπόμνημα or later
ὑπόμνημα
SB VI 9209 inv. 6199 3rd / 2nd unclear non-royal ἔντευξις, early
E. 7154 century BC ὑπόμνημα or later
ὑπόμνημα
SB XXVIII 6223 160 - 159 Lykopolites royal ἔντευξις or later
17261 BC? ὑπόμνημα
Stud. Pal. I p. 1 79440 2nd century unclear royal ἔντευξις or later
no. 1 BC ὑπόμνημα
Total: 44 texts
2. FORM
Structure
Just like the petitions discussed in the previous chapters, these texts ideally consist
of five consecutive elements: prescript, descriptive section, request, rhetorical
conclusion and closing formula. All of these texts have lost their prescript, however.
Not all texts add a rhetorical conclusion after the request: at least 17 texts contain
such a conclusion; at least two do not. One text, P. Hibeh II 203 [TM 5187], contains
two separate descriptive sections and requests, concerning two different parties
with whom the petitioner has a dispute. This is also the only text which certainly
does not contain a closing formula. Presumably, it is a draft.199
In only five cases, the beginning of the text (except for the prescript) is preserved.
All of these texts are introduced by petition formulas of the type ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό.
11 texts introduce requests with ἀξιῶ, the most common request introduction in
ὑπομνήματα, eight texts with δέομαι, the most common request introduction in
ἐντεύξεις, three texts with combined formulas of the type ἀξιῶ δεόμενος, and one
text with καλῶς ποιήσεις. Further, one text formulates the request in the
imperative form, without real introductory formula. Several texts add the polite
expression ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται or εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ to the request. The expression ἐάν
(σοι) φαίνηται (3 texts) appears 3 times with ἀξιῶ. The expression εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ (3
texts) appears twice with δέομαι (οὖν) σου and once with a request in the
imperative form.
rulers, and (4) conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to do justice. In the
fragmentary Greek petitions, conclusions of the first, second and fourth type can be
found. Most of the conclusions form separate sentences, introduced by the formula
τούτου (γὰρ / δὲ) γενομένου or τούτων (γὰρ / δὲ) γενομένων (13 texts). Some are
directly attached to the request as final clauses, introduced by ἵνα (4 texts).
199
TURNER in P. Hibeh II, p. 115.
This type of conclusion appears in nine texts:
- 3 texts contain appeals to justice (δίκαιον);
- 1 text contains an appeal to the addressee’s assistance (ἀντίληψις).
This type of conclusion appears in one text: P. Col. Zen. II 119 [TM 43255].
This type of conclusion appears in one text: P. Cairo Zen. IV 59626 [TM 1257].
Closing formula
14 texts are closed by the typical ἔντευξις and ὑπόμνημα salutation εὐτύχει. P.
Grenf. I 37 [TM 261] is closed by ἔρρωσο, the standard closing of ἐπιστολαί. In all
other respects, this text is formatted as a neat ἔντευξις or ὑπόμνημα petition,
however.
3. CONTENT
Most of these fragmentary Greek petitions are dispute-related (38 out of 43 texts),
but one is not. Five texts are so fragmentary that their context cannot be adequately
assessed.
3.1. Dispute-related petitions
Topics
- Violence (4 texts): BGU X 1904 [TM 8300]; BGU X 1908 [TM 8302]; P. Strasb. Gr. VII 681 [TM 3961] (?); P.
Tebt. I 230 [TM 3863].
- Misconduct or negligence by authorities (3 texts): BGU VI 1250 [TM 7323]; P. Hibeh II 203 [TM
5187]; P. Tebt. III 957 [TM 7987].
- Detention (9 texts): P. B.U.G. inv. 260 [TM 703104]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59623 [TM 1255]; P. Cairo Zen. IV
59626 [TM 1257]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59639 [TM 1270]; P. Cairo Zen. V 59826 [TM 1450]; P. Gurob 10 [TM 43324]; P.
Hibeh II 203 [TM 5187]; P. Stan. Class. 11 [TM 43272]; SB I 4302 [TM 7125].
- Theft (4 texts): P. Gurob 10 [TM 43324]; P. Strasb. Gr. VIII 701 [TM 3963]; SB VI 9209 inv. E. 7152 [TM 6199]
(?); SB VI 9209 inv. E. 7154 [TM 6199].
- Damage to property (1 text): SB XXVIII 17261 [TM 6223].
- Use and ownership of immovable property (3 texts): BGU III 1006 [TM 8727]; P. Lond. III 887
[TM 78481]; P. Tebt. III 953 [TM 5469].
- Lease and rental agreements (1 text): P. Enteux. A [TM 3388].
- Loans and property given in safekeeping (3 texts): BGU VI 1246 [TM 7322]; P. Athen. 6 [TM
77952]; Stud. Pal. I p. 1 no. 1 [TM 79440].
- Sureties and securities (2 texts): BGU VI 1246 [TM 7322]; Stud. Pal. I p. 1 no. 1 [TM 79440].
- Marriage contracts and dowries (1 text): P. Ryl. Gr. IV 669 [TM 42982] (?).
types of petitions: illegal change of name (BGU VI 1250 [TM 7323]); attempt by drunks to force the
entrance of the petitioner’s tavern (P. Lond. VII 2009 [TM 1571]).
petitions: dispute concerning maintenance of children (P. Tebt. III 783 [TM 7853]).
- Disputes of uncertain nature: BGU III 1004 col. i [TM 5551]; BGU X 1906 [TM 8301]; P. Bouriant 62 [TM
30781]; P. Grenf. I 37 [TM 261]; P. Köln Gr. VI 270 [TM 3200]; P. Lond. VII 2102 [TM 1663]; P. Paris 70 g [TM 78701];
P. Strasb. Gr. VII 645 [TM 3958]; PSI XIV 1403 [TM 27051].
Requests

harassment, (7) requests for release from detention, and (8) requests to initiate
proceedings before the chrematistai.
Several petitions ask to summon, send or bring the other party (5 texts) or the
petitioner (1 text: P. Cairo Zen. IV 59626 [TM 1257]) before an authority. This action
is referred to with the following verbs:
- 3 texts use ἀνακαλέομαι (“to summon”): P. Cairo Zen. IV 59626 [TM 1257]; P. Lond. III 887 [TM
78481]; P. Tebt. III 783 [TM 7853].
- 1 text uses μεταπέμπομαι (“to summon”): P. Gurob 10 [TM 43324].
- 1 text uses ἀποστέλλω (“to send”): P. Lond. VII 2009 [TM 1571].
- 1 text uses καθίστημι (“to bring”): P. Tebt. III 957 [TM 7987].
- 9 texts use ἐπισκέπτομαι - ἐπίσκεψις (“to investigate” - “investigation”): P. B.U.G. inv.

260 [TM 703104]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59623 [TM 1255]; P. Grenf. I 37 [TM 261]; P. Gurob 10 [TM 43324]; P. Hibeh II 203
[TM 5187]; P. Lond. III 887 [TM 78481]; P. Tebt. III 957 [TM 7987]; SB VI 9209 inv. E. 7152 [TM 6199]; SB VI 9209
inv. E. 7154 [TM 6199].
- 1 text uses διακούω (“to hear”): P. Cairo Zen. IV 59626 [TM 1257].
P. Tebt. III 783 [TM 7853] asks to pronounce a judgement (κρίνω).
SB VI 9209 inv. E. 7152 [TM 6199] asks to let the accused receive what they deserve
(ἵνʼ οἱ μὲν ἄνθ̣ρωπ̣[ο]ι τύχωσι ὧν ἄξιοί εἰσιν).
6 petitions ask to make the other party hand over money or movables: P. Enteux. A [TM
3388]; P. Gurob 10 [TM 43324]; P. Strasb. Gr. VIII 701 [TM 3963]; P. Tebt. III 783 [TM 7853]; P. Tebt. III 953 [TM
5469]; SB VI 9209 inv. E. 7152 [TM 6199].
2 petitions ask to make the other party hand over immovables: BGU III 1006 [TM 8727]; P.
Lond. III 887 [TM 78481].
P. Tebt. III 953 [TM 5469] asks to forbid the other party from trespassing (ἐπιβαίνω)
on some property.
5 petitions ask to release the petitioners from detention: P. B.U.G. inv. 260 [TM 703104]; P.
Cairo Zen. IV 59623 [TM 1255]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59626 [TM 1257]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59639 [TM 1270]; SB I 4302 [TM
7125].
P. Tebt. III 783 [TM 7853] asks to initiate proceedings before the chrematistai.
3.2. Non-dispute-related petitions
In BGU VI 1245 [TM 7321], a group of farmers complains about the bad quality of
their kleros and asks to reduce their lease fee or to give other land.
3.3. Fragmentary petitions of uncertain nature
Five petitions are so fragmentary that their context cannot be adequately assessed:
P. Col. Zen. II 119 [TM 43255]; P. Mich. Zen. 102 [TM 2001]; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 668 [TM 78759]; P. Yale I 56 l. 1-3 [TM
5540]; PUG III 111 [TM 43239].
Chapter IV: mḳmḳ
INTRODUCTION
While the Greek Ptolemaic text formats associated with petitioning (ἐντεύξεις and
ὑπομνήματα) have received ample scholarly attention, the Demotic mḳmḳ has
generally been overlooked in studies on Ptolemaic petitioning. Recently, this type of
texts has been brought back to the attention of the scientific community by DEPAUW
and the present author.200 The substantive mḳmḳ is derived from the verb mḳmḳ,
which means “to think”, “to consider”.201 Just like ὑπόμνημα, the term mḳmḳ was
generally used to denote written documents (which could serve as “reminder”), in a
similar way as the contemporary English word “memorandum”. The mḳmḳ served as
Demotic counterpart to the Greek ὑπόμνημα and was likewise used for
communications with and without petitioning function, usually addressed to the
authorities. In total, 45 Ptolemaic mḳmḳ have been preserved, of which 32 can be
identified as petitions and 13 as documents of various other nature, mainly but not
exclusively addressed to authorities.202 Just like ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα, these
documents were, as a rule, delivered to their addressee in person.203
SPIEGELBERG was the first to recognise the equivalence of the terms mḳmḳ and
ὑπόμνημα.204 He came to this conclusion on the basis of some documents from the
archive of the praktor of the temples Milon: one mḳmḳ petition to Milon (P. Bürgsch.
13 bis a [TM 2789]) is designated as ὑπόμνημα in its Greek summary; another
petition to Milon is preserved in both Demotic, as a mḳmḳ (P. Bürgsch. 13 [TM 5858]),
and Greek, as a ὑπόμνημα (P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. Eleph. Dem. 10 [TM 44603]).
200
BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’; DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 323-330.
201
DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 323-324; VITTMANN, Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9, p. 615. Cf. also the Coptic
word ⲙⲟⲕⲙⲉⲕ: CRUM, A Coptic dictionary, p. 162.
202
Five mḳmḳ that were interpreted as petitions in BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’, are reclassified as texts
without petitioning function in the present study because they seem to be addressed to private persons (P.
Berlin dem. 15592 ined. l. 20-29 [TM 91946]; P. Fitzhugh Dem. 1 [TM 51408]) or because they do not make explicit
requests (P. Oxf. Griffith I 38 [48879]; P. Oxf. Griffith I 39 [TM 48545]; P. Oxf. Griffith I 41 [TM 48881]). P. Cairo II
30960 Ro [TM 552], which was already identified as mḳmḳ in DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 324, but not in BAETENS,
‘Demotic petitioning’, p. 56, is here included as mḳmḳ after all (cf. below, p. 159 note 221). Finally, three new
unpublished mḳmḳ are included in this study: P. Carlsberg Dem. 486 ined. [TM 873618], P. Köln Dem. 5684 ined.
[TM 642675] and P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8448 ined. [TM 873608]. For P. Berlin 13608 col. b [TM 308], P. Brooklyn Dem.
5 [TM 69352] and P. Cairo II 31020 + 31057 Ro [TM 609], identified as mḳmḳ by DEPAUW (The Demotic Letter, p. 325),
see BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’, p. 36, 39-40, 45-46.
203
204
SPIEGELBERG in P. Eleph. Dem., p. 12, 15.
152 CHAPTER IV: mḳmḳ
SPIEGELBERG argued that the Demotic P. Bürgsch. 13 [TM 5858] was translated from
the Greek P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. Eleph. Dem. 10 [TM 44603], but SETHE objected that
the Demotic text was the primary version.205 The curious formulas used in the
prescript and conclusion of the Demotic version (see below, p. 157, 159) constitute
strong arguments in favour of SPIEGELBERG’s interpretation, however. This link
between the mḳmḳ and ὑπόμνημα which SPIEGELBERG observed was later confirmed
by other sources. Two ὑπομνήματα were published that are designated as mḳmḳ in a
Demotic subscription: one from the Ptolemaic period (P. Köln VI 272 [TM 3202]) and
another from the Roman period (P. Mich. V 226 [TM 12067]).206 Recently, the present
author and DEPAUW showed that P. BM Siut 10591 Vo col. i-ii [TM 53821], a mḳmḳ
from the Siut archive, is in fact a translation of a ὑπόμνημα.207
The prescripts of mḳmḳ are similar to those of Greek early ὑπομνήματα: wʿ (bȝk-)
mḳmḳ, “a (document of) mḳmḳ”, followed by the identification of the addressee
(introduced by the prepositions n or ỉ.ỉr-ḥr or by the expression r dy s n, “to give to”)
and the submitter (introduced by the preposition n-ḏr.t). In 21 texts the addressee
precedes the submitter; in 16 texts the submitter comes first.208
Despite their relatively small number, the mḳmḳ offer a fascinating new perspective
on Ptolemaic petitioning practices. In his 1997 article on Ptolemaic petitions,
HENGSTL wrote that “Griechisch ist die Sprache der Verwaltung und folglich auch
der Eingaben”.209 Now, it is clear that this view needs to be nuanced: some petitions
were composed in the Demotic mḳmḳ format. This is all the more remarkable given
that the mḳmḳ does not appear to have existed before the Ptolemaic period (see
below).
Obviously, the mḳmḳ was mainly used in Egyptian contexts, in particular the
temples. With one exception, all submitters of mḳmḳ bear an Egyptian name. In 19
cases, they are clearly connected to an Egyptian temple as priest or other personnel.
One mḳmḳ petition, P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8448 ined. [TM 873609], was submitted by a
Greek named Alexandros son of Eirenaios. In this petition, he complains to Marres,
prophet of Bastet and epistates of the temples in the Arsinoites, that he was
battered in the street by a priest of Soknebtynis. Presumably, Alexandros hired the
services of an Egyptian scribe in order to compose his petition in Demotic instead of
Greek. In this way, he could address Marres, who was a powerful member of the
205
SPIEGELBERG in P. Eleph. Dem., p. 10-14; SETHE in P. Bürgsch., p. 287-288.
206
For P. Köln VI 272 [TM 3202], see BAETENS, ‘Some Corrections to Ptolemaic Petitions’, p. 284-285. Recently, a
new edition of P. Mich. V 226 [TM 12067] was published, including its Demotic subscription: WINKLER & ZELLMANN-
ROHRER, ‘A Bilingual Petition from the Priests of Roman Tebtunis’.
207
BAETENS & DEPAUW, ‘The legal advice of Totoes in the Siut archive’. BAUSCHATZ (Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic
Egypt, p. 160-217) describes UPZ I 6 a [TM 3497] as a “Demotic version of a Greek petition” as well, but does not
give any arguments for this interpretation.
208
The use of n-ḏr.t in the mḳmḳ prescript might be attributed to Greek influence. In Demotic letters, this
preposition is rarely used in interior or exterior addresses (DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 120-121, 153-154, 327),
but in the ὑπόμνημα prescript, the submitter is always identified with the expression παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος. Probably,
the preposition n-ḏr.t was used in the mḳmḳ prescript in order to imitate this Greek construction.
209
HENGSTL, ‘Petita in Petitionen gräko-ägyptischer Papyri’, p. 281.
CHAPTER IV: mḳmḳ 153
indigenous elite and had all the right connections to help him, in a polite manner.
Thus, P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8448 ined. [TM 873609] offers a rare parallel to the necessity
of many Egyptians to write their petitions to Greek officials or the sovereign in
Greek.
With regard to the addressees of mḳmḳ, the picture is somewhat more complex. At
least 17 mḳmḳ (10 with and 7 without petitioning function) are addressed to
Egyptian priests or temple personnel, but there are mḳmḳ to state officials as well: to
the strategos (2 petitions), the basilikos grammateus (1 petition), the
topogrammateus (1 petition), the village epistates (1 petition), the
komogrammateus (1 with and 3 without petitioning function) and the praktor of
the temples (3 petitions). The two preserved mḳmḳ to the strategos (O. Ifao Edfou
Dem. 632 [TM 128947] and P. BM Siut 10591 Vo col. i-ii [TM 53821]) cannot serve as
evidence that the strategos actually received petitions in Demotic: the first text,
written on an ostrakon on which remains of an earlier effaced text can still be
discerned, is a draft, and the second is a translation. But the other officials listed
above do appear to have received Demotic as well as Greek petitions, which gives a
very different impression of the Ptolemaic administration than the above-cited
statement by HENGSTL.
Still, it does not seem to have been common for Egyptians to petition in Demotic:
the preserved Greek petitions from the Ptolemaic period outnumber the Demotic
ones by about thirty to one, and many of the Greek petitions are written by
Egyptians. P. Strasb. II 91 [TM 3918] offers a good illustration of the predominance
of Greek as petition language: this petition is written in Greek, although it is
addressed by a group of Egyptian buriers of sacred animals to an Egyptian military
officer, who added a summary in Demotic on the verso. No evidence suggests that
petitioning in Demotic was ever forbidden, but in general it must have been more
practical to submit petitions in Greek: all state authorities were able to read Greek,
and if a Greek petition needed to be passed on to another authority or had to serve
as evidence in a Greek court, it did not need to be translated.
There is no evidence for mḳmḳ predating the Ptolemaic period. Presumably, the
format was a Ptolemaic creation, modelled after the ὑπόμνημα, which was used in
other Hellenistic kingdoms as well (see chapter II, p. 69-70). The mḳmḳ did outlive
the Ptolemies, however.210 One mḳmḳ, P. Zauzich 60 [TM 48602], certainly dates from
the Roman period (2nd century AD). Another mḳmḳ, P. Cairo II 31221 [TM 44349], was
dated to the Roman period by SPIEGELBERG, although the appearance of the term wyʿ
Pr-ʿȝ (“royal farmer”) in l. 3 of this text may perhaps favour a late Ptolemaic
dating.211 Further attestations of the word mḳmḳ from the Roman period can be
210
Erroneously denied in BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’, p. 56-57.
211
SPIEGELBERG in P. Cairo II 31221, p. 309. Cf. BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’, p. 57. For the use of the terms
βασιλικὸς γεωργός and δημόσιος γεωργός, see WILCKEN, Grundzüge, p. 290.
found in P. Götterbriefe 8 [TM 48778] (5 BC),212 P. Mich. V 226 [TM 12067] (37 AD), O.
Dem. Narm. III 116 [TM 91462], O. Dem. Narm. III 120 [TM 91466] and O. Dem. Narm.
III 186 [TM 91532] (ca. 198 - 206 BC). The scarcity of these sources shows that the
mḳmḳ gradually fell in disuse in the Roman period, however, just like other types of
Demotic documents.213
1. mḳmḳ WITH PETITIONING FUNCTION
1.1. List
O. Hor 26 48993 200 - 140 Memphites unclear Horos of written on

BC Sebennytos ostrakon
O. Ifao Edfou 128947 75 - 74 / Apollonopolites strategos written on
Dem. 632 46 - 45 BC ostrakon;
palimpsest
P. Berl. Eleph. 48634 3rd Omboi till unclear
II 13567 century Philai
BC
P. BM Siut 53821 170 BC Omboi till strategos Siut translation
10591 Vo col. Philai of Greek
i-ii ὑπόμνημα
P. BM Siut 43409 170 BC Lykopolites prophet / sḥn n Siut epistolary
10598 Pr-ʿȝ prescript,
but
designated
as mḳmḳ
P. BM Siut 48653 169 BC Lykopolites prophet / sḥn n Siut
10599 Pr-ʿȝ
P. BM Siut 44188 169 BC Lykopolites topogrammateus Siut
10600
P. Bürgsch. 13 5858 223 BC Apollonopolites praktor of the Milon same
temples praktor petition as P.
Eleph. Gr. 27
a + P. Eleph.
Dem. 10
bis a temples praktor petition as P.
Bürgsch. 13
bis b
212
P. Götterbriefe 8 [TM 48778] is a letter to a god that refers to itself as mḳmḳ, suggesting that this letter was
viewed as a “petition” to the god by the supplicant. Cf. KOTSIFOU, ‘Prayers and petitions for justice’, p. 183; LOVE,
‘Beyond Earthly Justice’.
213
A good overview of literature on this subject can be found in STADLER, ‘On the Demise of Egyptian Writing’.

bis b temples praktor petition as P.
Bürgsch. 13
bis a
P. Cairo II 552 104 BC Pathyrites unclear temple of
30960 Ro Pathyris
P. Cairo II 567 132 - 131 Pathyrites unclear Nechoutes
30976 Ro BC alias
Almaphis
son of
Pelaias
P. Cairo II 44349 ca. 100 - Arsinoites college of priests
31221 30 BC?
P. Carlsberg 873618 Ptolemaic Memphites prophet of Thoth / designated
Dem. 486 ined. scribe of the as mḳmḳ
treasury
P. Dem. Mon. 5 45930 249 / 146 Herakleopolites village epistates
/ 135 / 82 (?)
BC
P. Fitzhugh 51409 3rd / 2nd Memphites (?) overseer of fields
Dem. 2 century
BC
P. Freib. IV 75 2515 231 - 230 Oxyrhynchites unclear Ameneus
BC beer-seller
P. Köln Dem. 642675 Ptolemaic unclear unclear
5684 ined.
P. Oxf. Griffith 873601 146 / 135 Arsinoites lesonis (?) temple of
without BC Soknopaiou
number 8 col. Nesos
ii ined.
P. Oxf. Griffith 46947 161 BC Arsinoites komogrammateus temple of
I 37 Soknopaiou
Nesos
P. Oxf. Griffith 48880 147 / 136 Arsinoites lesonis + temple temple of
I 40 BC epistates + college Soknopaiou
of priests Nesos
P. Sorb. IV 149 44438 3rd Arsinoites ḥry pȝ mšʿ
century
BC
P. Syrac. 262 316183 Ptolemaic Arsinoites (?) basilikos
grammateus
P. Tebt. Dem. 873602 2nd Arsinoites unclear
SCA 4579.12 century
ined. BC
SCA 4679.11 century
ined. BC
P. Tebt. Dem. 873604 2nd Arsinoites lesonis
SCA 5169.5 century
ined. BC
SCA 5930.3 century
ined. BC

SCA 8342 ined. century
BC
P. Tebt. Dem. 873608 2nd Arsinoites agent of temple
SCA 8441 ined. century epistates
BC
P. Tebt. Dem. 873609 148 BC Arsinoites prophet / epistates
SCA 8448 ined. of temples in
Arsinoites
UPZ I 6 a 3497 163 BC? Memphites unclear katochoi of
the
Serapeion
WT. Zürich 51507 ca. 150 - Pathyrites prophet / ʿȝ n 1000 written on
1894 100 BC wooden
tablet
Total: 32 texts
1.2. Addressees
Ten mḳmḳ petitions are addressed to members of the priesthood or temple

personnel: the prophet (5 texts; one prophet is also temple epistates, one is scribe of
the treasury, one is ʿȝ n 1000, and two are sḥn Pr-ʿȝ),214 the lesonis (2 texts), the agent
of the temple epistates (1 text), the college of priests (1 text), and the lesonis
together with the temple epistates and the college of priests (1 text). Nine are
addressed to state authorities: the strategos (2 texts), the basilikos grammateus (1
text), the topogrammateus (1 text), the village epistates (1 text), the
komogrammateus (1 text), the praktor of the temples (3 texts) and the overseer of
fields (1 text).215 Finally, one text is addressed to a man designated as ḥry pȝ mšʿ,
which might be a religious, military or police title.216
214
It is not clear in which way the title sḥn n Pr-ʿȝ is used in these texts: THOMPSON (in P. BM Siut, p. 77-78)
interprets it as an alternative title for the temple epistates; PEREMANS & VAN ‘T DACK (Prosopographica, p. 98, 104)
suggest that it might be a Demotic title for the oikonomos. The title ʿȝ n 1000 probably is to be interpreted as
“military commander of 1000 men”, equivalent of the Greek title χιλιάρχης: cf. CDD, ʿ, p. 29. The addressee of the
mḳmḳ in question (WT Zürich 1894 [TM 51507]) is called “great one of 1000 in Pathyris and Krokodilopolis” (ʿȝ n
1000 n Pr-Ḥ.t-Ḥr Ỉmwr). In both places, military camps were present, and VANDORPE (‘The Ptolemaic Army in Upper
Egypt’, p. 113, 132) has suggested that soldiers from these camps could be named after the same eponymous
officer. For an alternative interpretation of the title as “owner of 1000 arouras”, see CLARYSSE, ‘Egyptian estate
holders’, p. 736-743.
215
For the overseer of fields (mr-ȝḥ), see VITTMANN, Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9, p. 516-517.
216
Cf. CHAUFRAY in P. Sorb. IV, p. 48, 82; CHEVEREAU, Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens de la Basse Epoque, p.
267-268; DE CENIVAL, ‘Fragments de lettres administratives du Fonds Jouguet’, p. 19; TAIT, ‘A Demotic list of temple
and court occupations’, p. 224.
1.3. Form
Structure
Just like the Greek petitions discussed in the previous chapters, mḳmḳ petitions
ideally consist of five consecutive elements: prescript, descriptive section, request,
rhetorical conclusion and closing formula. Not all texts add a rhetorical conclusion
after the request: at least seven texts contain such a conclusion, but at least eight do
not. Further, three mḳmḳ petition drafts show a highly irregular structure: O. Hor 26
[TM 48993], O. Ifao Edfou Dem. 632 [TM 128947] and P. Berl. Eleph. II 13567 [TM
48634]. These are also the only three texts in which the closing formula is missing.
P. Berl. Eleph. II 13567 [TM 48634] is a rough concept for a petition, composed of
keywords only.
Prescript
Most texts use the standard mḳmḳ prescript: wʿ (bȝk-)mḳmḳ followed by the
identification of the addressee and submitter, in various order. In 16 texts with this
prescript, the addressee precedes the submitter; in seven texts the submitter comes
first. The identification of the addressee is introduced by the preposition n (16
texts), ỉ.ỉr-ḥr (1 text), or the expression r dy s n (2 texts). In P. Bürgsch. 13 [TM 5858],
a Demotic copy of the Greek P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. Eleph. Dem. 10 [TM 44603], the
extraordinary order n [addressee] wʿ bȝk-mḳmḳ n-ḏr.t [submitter] is used. It is
debated whether this mḳmḳ was translated from the ὑπόμνημα or vice versa (see
above, p. 151-152), but the peculiar word order of the Demotic prescript might be an
indication that the Demotic version was translated from Greek: in P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a +
P. Eleph. Dem. 10 [TM 44603], the standard later ὑπόμνημα prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ
τοῦ δεῖνος is used; possibly, the scribe of P. Bürgsch. 13 [TM 5858] started copying
the identification of the addressee before realising that the element wʿ bȝk-mḳmḳ
had to be included in order to have a normal mḳmḳ prescript.
Three texts use different prescripts, but all three are drafts.217 P. Berl. Eleph. II 13567
[TM 48634] starts with pȝ bȝk-mḳmḳ, without reference to the addressee or
submitter. The other two texts use prescripts without the word mḳmḳ: in P. BM Siut
217
O. Ifao Edfou Dem. 632 [TM 128947] is written on an ostrakon on which traces of an earlier effaced text can
still be discerned. P. Berl. Eleph. II 13567 [TM 48634] is composed of keywords only. P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409]
bears the following subscription: ỉw=y (r) ỉr ky (n) Ḏd-ḥr sȝ Ḏd-ḥr pȝ sẖ tmy (“I will make another one for Teos son
of Teos the komogrammateus”). Clearly, all three texts are drafts.
10598 [TM 43409], the epistolary prescript [submitter] pȝ nty ḏd ỉ.ỉr-ḥr [addressee]
(“[submitter] is the one who says to [addressee]”) is used, and in O. Ifao Edfou Dem.
632 [TM 128947] the unparalleled formula n-ḏr.t [submitter] m-bȝḥ [addressee].218 But
in all other respects these texts conform to the characteristics associated with
mḳmḳ, so they can still be identified as such. P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409] is even
referred to as mḳmḳ by its author, further in the text, and bears a close resemblance
to two other mḳmḳ from the same archive that use the normal mḳmḳ prescript (P.
BM Siut 10599 [TM 48653]; P. BM Siut 10600 [TM 44188]). Presumably, the unusual
opening formulas of these three texts would have been replaced by the normal
mḳmḳ prescript in their final redaction.
The function of the addressee is indicated in all but one text: P. BM Siut 10591 Vo
col. i-ii [TM 53821], addressed to Noumenios, who is identified as strategos in the
commentary to this petition preserved on the same papyrus (P. BM Siut 10591 Vo
col. iii [TM 53822]). Colleges of priests are only identified by title, not with
individual names.
Seven texts are introduced by ḫpr + date (“it happened in [date] that ...”), a common
introductory phrase in Demotic letters,219 and one by the date without ḫpr. Further,
six texts are introduced by expressions with the verb gmʿ, which were probably
modelled after the formulas with ἀδικέω introducing Greek petitions:
tw=y gmʿ n-ḏr.t [accused] P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409]; P. BM Siut 10599 [TM 48653];
“I have been wronged by [accused]” P. BM Siut 10600 [TM 44188]
[accused] gmʿ r-ḥr=y (m-šs) P. Fitzhugh Dem. 2 [TM 51409]; P. Syrac. 262 [TM 316183]
“[accused] is wronging me (exceedingly)”
ỉw(=y) n=k [ỉw=y (?)] gmʿ m-šs n-ḏr.t [accused] O. Ifao Edfou Dem. 632 [TM 128947]
“I have come to you, exceedingly wronged by
[accused]”
Various expressions are used at the start of the remaining texts.
The requests of these texts are introduced in various ways:
218
For the epistolary prescript in question, see DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 144-147.
219
DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 277.
- The most common request introduction is tw=y tbḥ n-ỉm=s (mtw=k) (“I beg (you)
...”), attested in ten texts. Request introductions with tbḥ appear in Demotic
documents from the Ptolemaic period onwards and may have been inspired by
Greek requests introduced by δέομαι and ἀξιῶ. 220 In six cases, the formula is
followed by polite expressions of the type ỉw=f ḫpr ỉw=s ḥs (“if it is praised” = “if it
seems good”, sometimes supplemented with a reference to the addressee: “if it
seems good to [the addressee]”).221 This expression is also attested in Demotic
letters, 222 but in combination with tw=y tbḥ n-ỉm=s it only appears in mḳmḳ,
reminding of the formulas δέομαι + εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ and ἀξιῶ + ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται in
Greek petitions.
- In four texts, the request is introduced by an optative wish construction (my, “may
...”), once preceded by ỉw=f ḫpr ỉw=s ḥs.
- In three texts, the request is expressed in the future III tense (ỉw=k/w r, “you/they
will ...”), every time preceded by ỉw=f ḫpr ỉw=s ḥs.
- In two texts, the request is introduced by nȝ-ʿn=f ỉw=k r ỉr=f (“it would be good if you
do it ...”), an expression that can be found in a couple of Demotic letters as well and
that was probably inspired by the Greek formula καλῶς ποιήσεις / ἂν ποιήσαις.223
rulers, and (4) conclusions stressing the petitioners’ ability to do justice. In the
mḳmḳ petitions, conclusions of the first type (more specifically appeals to justice)
and second type can be found. All of these conclusions remind strongly of formulas
found in Greek petitions, and in fact one or two of these mḳmḳ turn out to be
translations from Greek.
220
DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 267-268.
221
In the editio princeps of P. Cairo II 30960 Ro [TM 552], SPIEGELBERG read tw=n tbḥ [n-ỉm=s (?) mtw=tn (?) tȝ (?)]
ḥs(.t), “Wir bitten [euch (nun) um die] Gnade”, but this should be corrected to tw=n tbḥ [n-ỉm=s mtw=tn (?) ỉw=s] ḥs.
This new reading favours DEPAUW’s original interpretation of the document as a mḳmḳ (The Demotic Letter, p. 324)
over the present author’s previous reinterpretation of the document as a letter (BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’,
p. 56).
222
For expressions of the type ỉw=f ḫpr ỉw=s ḥs, see DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 266-267.
223
DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 262-264. P. Bürgsch. 13 [TM 5858]) and P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. Eleph. Dem. 10 [TM
44603] show that nȝ-ʿn=f r.ỉr=k r ỉr=f could in any case be used as equivalent of καλῶς ποιήσεις.
This type of conclusion appears in three texts:
- P. Bürgsch. 13 [TM 5858] is a Demotic copy of the Greek P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. Eleph.
Dem. 10 [TM 44603]. It is debated whether the mḳmḳ was translated from the
ὑπόμνημα or vice versa (see above, p. 151-152), but the rhetorical conclusion of the
texts constitutes an important argument in favour of the primacy of the Greek
version: ḫpr=f r ỉw=f ḫpr r bn-pw=w gmʿ=n (“so that, if it happens, we will not have
been wronged”) in Demotic, matched by τούτου δὲ γενομένου ἐσόμεθα οὐκ
ἠδικημένοι in Greek. The Demotic construction ḫpr=f r ỉw=f ḫpr seems to be an
awkward translation of the typical Greek phrase τούτου δὲ γενομένου, just like ḫpr=f
ỉ.ỉr nȝy ḫpr in P. BM Siut 10591 Vo col. i-ii [TM 53821] (see below). Moreover, appeals
to justice with ἀδικέω are quite common in Greek petitions.224
- P. BM Siut 10591 Vo col. i-ii [TM 53821] is a literal translation from Greek (see
above, p. 152), and its conclusion ḫpr=f ỉ.ỉr nȝy ḫpr ỉw pȝ hp ỉr.ṱ n=n (n) rn=k (“so that it
may be while justice is done for us in your name, that this happens”) must be a
translation of a Greek appeal to justice of the type τούτου δὲ γενομένου διὰ σὲ
τευξόμεθα τοῦ δικαίου.
- P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409] also adds an appeal to justice to the request: mtw=f ḫpr
r pȝ hp ỉr.w n=y (“and that it happens that justice is done to me”). Probably, this
conclusion was also inspired by the appeals to justice found in Greek petitions.
This type of conclusion appears in four texts:
- The petitioners of P. Bürgsch. 13 bis a [TM 2789] and P. Bürgsch. 13 bis b [TM
44604], two copies of one and the same petition, stress that the royal treasury will
not suffer loss if their request is granted: r bn-ỉw md nb (r) ȝḳ (n) ḏr.t Pr-ʿȝ (“so that
nothing will be lost by the king”). Very similar Greek conclusions (of the type ὅπως
μηθὲν διαπέσηι τῶι βασιλεῖ) can be found in later ὑπόμνημα petitions.225
- The petitioner of P. BM Siut 10599 [TM 48653] and P. BM Siut 10600 [TM 44188],
two closely related petitions from the Siut archive, stresses that he will be able to
pay his rent if his request is granted: ḫpr=f ỉw=y ȝsẖ=w ỉw=y mḥ pȝy=w šm r pȝ rȝ Pr-ʿȝ n
wš lyg n pȝ tȝ (“If I reap them, I will pay their rent to the royal treasury without any
224
Other appeals to justice with ἀδικέω appear in P. Cairo Zen. III 59341 a l. 7-36 [TM 984]; P. Enteux. 2 [TM 3280];
[TM 3324]; P. Lond. VII 2036 [TM 1598]; P. Mich. XVIII 774 [TM 8768]; P. Texas inv. 1 [TM 873600]; P. Texas inv. 6
[TM 131719]; PSI IV 383 l. 7-17 [TM 2067]; PSI IV 384 [TM 2068].
225
See BGU VIII 1841 [TM 4920]; BGU VIII 1851 [TM 4930]; P. Dion. 11 [TM 3094]; P. Dion. 12 l. 6-21 [TM 3095]; P.
Duke inv. 676 [TM 58467]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 433 [TM 89288]; P. Hels. I 9 [TM 5144]; P. Tarich. 11 [TM 316254]; P.
Tarich. 12 l. 1-5 [TM 316255]; P. Tebt. I 41 [TM 78772]; P. Tebt. I 49 [TM 3685]; P. Tebt. I 50 [TM 3686]; P. Tebt. III
772 [TM 5364]; P. Tebt. III 786 [TM 5372]; SB XIV 11968 [TM 4291]; SB XXVIII 16874 [TM 133400]. SPIEGELBERG (in P.
Eleph. Dem., p. 15) already noted this link.
hindrance at all”). Very similar Greek conclusions can be found in ὑπόμνημα

petitions.226
Closing formula
Three texts are closed by sẖ [writer] (n) [date] (“written by [writer] in [date]”), eight
by sẖ (n) [date] (“written in [date]”) and two by sẖ (“written”). These closing
formulas are borrowed from Demotic letters.227 In P. BM Siut 10591 Vo col. i-ii [TM
53821], a Demotic translation of a ὑπόμνημα (see above, p. 152), the Greek final
salutation εὐτύχει is translated as ỉw-ỉw=k wḏȝ (“while you are doing well”).
1.4. Content
Most mḳmḳ petitions are dispute-related (21 out of 32 texts), but two are not. Nine
texts are so fragmentary that their context cannot be adequately assessed.
Topics
- Violence (1 text): P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8448 ined. [TM 873609].
- Misconduct or negligence by authorities (1 text): P. Syrac. 262 [TM 316183].
- Theft (6 texts): P. Fitzhugh Dem. 2 [TM 51409]; P. Oxf. Griffith I 37 [TM 46947] (?); P. Oxf. Griffith I 40 [TM
48880]; P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8342 ined. [TM 873607] (?); UPZ I 6 a [TM 3497]; WT. Zürich 1894 [TM 51507].
226
See BGU VI 1252 [TM 7324]; BGU VIII 1836 [TM 4915]; P. Grenf. I 11 + P. Heid. Gr. 1288 col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 5 [TM
247]; P. Lille Gr. I 8 [TM 3215]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 66 a l. 3-9 [TM 5285]; P. Tebt. I 40 [TM 3676]; P. Tebt. I 50 [TM 3686]; P.
Tebt. III 786 [TM 5372]; P. Tebt. III 787 [TM 5373]; P. Tebt. III 961 l. 1-12 [TM 5475].
227
DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 159-168, 327.
- Use and ownership of immovable property (7 texts): P. BM Siut 10591 Vo col. i-ii [TM 53821];
P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409]; P. BM Siut 10599 [TM 48653]; P. BM Siut 10600 [TM 44188]; P. Bürgsch. 13 [TM 5858];
P. Bürgsch. 13 bis a [TM 2789]; P. Bürgsch. 13 bis b [TM 44604].
- Lease and rental agreements (1 text): P. Cairo II 30976 Ro [TM 567].
- Sureties and securities (3 texts): P. Bürgsch. 13 [TM 5858]; P. Bürgsch. 13 bis a [TM 2789]; P. Bürgsch.
13 bis b [TM 44604].
- Inheritances (3 texts): P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409]; P. BM Siut 10599 [TM 48653]; P. BM Siut 10600 [TM
44188].
types of petitions: abuses in an ibis sanctuary (O. Hor 26 [TM 48993]).
- Disputes of uncertain nature: O. Ifao Edfou Dem. 632 [TM 128947]; P. Carlsberg Dem. 486 ined. [TM
873618]; P. Freib. IV 75 [TM 2515]; P. Sorb. IV 149 [TM 44438].
Requests

someone before an authority, (2) requests for examination, (3) requests to make the
other party hand over property, (4) requests to make the other party abandon a
claim or stop some harassment, (5) requests to make the other party do justice, (6)
requests concerning seizure or blocking of property, (7) requests for release of a
mortgage, and (8) requests that do not fit any of the above categories and are
exclusively attested in mḳmḳ.
6 petitions ask to bring (ỉn) the other party before an authority: P. BM Siut 10598 [TM
43409]; P. Carlsberg Dem. 486 ined. [TM 873618]; P. Fitzhugh Dem. 2 [TM 51409]; P. Oxf. Griffith I 40 [TM 48880];
P. Sorb. IV 149 [TM 44438]; P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8448 ined. [TM 873609].
3 petitions ask to examine the case or the parties involved. The petitioners of P.
Fitzhugh Dem. 2 [TM 51409] and P. Freib. IV 75 [TM 2515] use the fixed judicial
phrase sḏm ḫrw=y ỉrm [other party] (“to hear my plea together with [other party]”).
In P. Oxf. Griffith I 40 [TM 48880], the requested examination is expressed with the
verb šn.
2 petitions, P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409] and P. BM Siut 10600 [TM 44188], ask to
make the other party hand over some land (and in the first case also some money).
- P. BM Siut 10599 [TM 48653] asks to forbid the other party from trespassing (hn) on
some property.
- O. Ifao Edfou Dem. 632 [TM 128947] asks to order the other party to remain far (wy)
from the petitioner.
P. Sorb. IV 149 [TM 44438] asks to make the other party do justice (ỉr pȝ hp) to the
petitioner.
P. BM Siut 10591 Vo col. i-ii asks to (temporarily) seize or block some property, and
O. Ifao Edfou Dem. 632 [TM 128947] asks to put an end to the seizure or blocking of
some property.
7. Requests for release of a mortgage
P. Bürgsch. 13 [TM 5858] asks to release a mortgage.
8. Other requests, attested exclusively in mḳmḳ
Two copies of one petition (P. Bürgsch. 13 bis a [TM 2789]; P. Bürgsch. 13 bis b [TM
44604]) ask to confirm an associate of the petitioners as the new owner of their
(mortgaged) property, so that he can pay the rest of their debts in order to avoid a
public auction.
In P. Cairo II 30960 Ro [TM 552], the petitioners ask for a contribution from the
temple for the burial of their father.
P. Berl. Eleph. II 13567 [TM 48634] seems to request a replacement for a military
mission.
1.4.3. Fragmentary petitions of uncertain nature
Nine mḳmḳ are so fragmentary that their content cannot be adequately determined:
P. Cairo II 31221 [TM 44349]; P. Dem. Mon. 5 [TM 45930]; P. Köln Dem. 5684 ined. [TM 642675]; P. Oxf. Griffith
without number 8 col. ii ined. [TM 873601]; P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 4579.12 ined. [TM 873602]; P. Tebt. Dem. SCA
4679.11 ined. [TM 873603]; P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 5169.5 ined. [TM 873604]; P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 5930.3 ined. [TM
873605]; P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8441 ined. [TM 873606].
2. mḳmḳ WITHOUT PETITIONING FUNCTION
2.1. List
O. Hor 1 48969 159 BC Memphites college of priests Horos of written on

Sebennytos ostrakon
O. Hor 21 48988 200 - 140 Memphites college of priests Horos of written on
BC Sebennytos ostrakon
O. Hor 31 48438 ca. 180 - Memphites prophet / Horos of written on
160 BC eponymous priest Sebennytos ostrakon
O. Strasb. Dem. 316909 ca. 150 - 88 Pathyrites unclear written on
246 ined. BC? (?) ostrakon
P. Berlin Dem. 91946 Ptolemaic Panopolites family members of
15592 ined. l. submitters
20-29
P. Fitzhugh 51408 2nd / 1st Arsinoites royal farmer
Dem. 1 century
BC
P. Loeb 40 48850 Ptolemaic unclear komogrammateus probably same
document as
P. Loeb 53 and
P. Loeb 66
P. Loeb 53 48851 2nd / 1st unclear komogrammateus probably same
century document as
BC P. Loeb 40 and
P. Loeb 66
P. Loeb 66 48852 Ptolemaic unclear komogrammateus probably same
document as
P. Loeb 40 and
P. Loeb 53
P. Oxf. Griffith I 48879 159 BC Arsinoites lesonis temple of
38 Soknopaiou
Nesos
P. Oxf. Griffith I 48545 156 BC Arsinoites prophet / epistates temple of
39 of temples in Soknopaiou
Arsinoites Nesos
P. Oxf. Griffith I 48881 131 BC Arsinoites lesonis + college of temple of

41 priests Soknopaiou
Nesos
P. Tebt. Dem. 873606 ca. 132 BC Arsinoites lesonis
SCA 8334 ined.
Total: 13 texts
2.2. Addressees
Seven mḳmḳ without petitioning function are addressed to priests: the prophet (2
texts; one prophet is also eponymous priest of Alexander, and the other temple
epistates), the lesonis (2 texts), the college of priests (2 texts) and the lesonis
together with the college of priests (1 text). Three texts are addressed to the
komogrammateus. Two texts seem to be addressed to private persons: P. Berlin
Dem. 15592 ined. l. 20-29 [TM 91946] is addressed to two siblings of one of the
submitters, and P. Fitzhugh Dem. 1 [TM 51408] to a royal farmer who leases land to
the submitter.
2.3. Form
Structure
The mḳmḳ without petitioning function are a freely and diversely structured group
of texts. Only two of them make a request: P. Berlin Dem. 15592 ined. l. 20-29 [TM
91946] and P. Fitzhugh Dem. 1 [TM 51408]. In P. Fitzhugh Dem. 1 [TM 51408], this
request is preceded by a descriptive section; in P. Berlin Dem. 15592 ined. l. 20-29
[TM 91946] it is not. At least four texts contain a closing formula; at least three (O.
Hor 1 [TM 48969]; O. Hor 21 [TM 48988]; P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8334 ined. [TM 873606])
do not, but the first two are clearly drafts, written on ostrakon.
Prescript
All texts use the standard mḳmḳ prescript: wʿ (bȝk-)mḳmḳ followed by the
identification of the addressee and submitter, in various order. In five texts the
addressee precedes the submitter; in seven texts the submitter comes first. The
identification of the addressee is introduced by the prepositions n (6 texts) or ỉ.ỉr-ḥr
(3 texts), or by the expression r dy s n (2 texts). The function of the addressee is
indicated in all but two texts: O. Strasb. Dem. 246 ined. [TM 316909], addressed to a
certain 3trstyḳs (Aristodikos?), and P. Berlin Dem. 15592 ined. l. 20-29 [TM 91946],
addressed to two siblings of one of the submitters (who presumably did not hold an
official function). Colleges of priests are only identified by title, not with individual
names.
One text is introduced by ḫpr + date (“it happened in [date] that ..."), a common
introductory phrase in Demotic letters,228 and one by the date without ḫpr. In one
case, the body of the text immediately starts with a request. Various expressions are
used at the start of the remaining texts.
Only two texts make a request. P. Berlin Dem. 15592 ined. l. 20-29 [TM 91946]
introduces the request with [tw=n] tbḥ n-ỉm=s (“we beg ...”), a common formula in
mḳmḳ petitions (see above, p. 159). In P. Fitzhugh Dem. 1 [TM 51408], the request is
introduced by ỉ.ỉr=y dy n=k pȝ mḳmḳ ỉw=k r (“it is to you that I give the mḳmḳ, while
you will ...”), probably inspired by Greek requests of the type ἐπιδίδωμί σοι τὸ
ὑπόμνημα ὅπως.229
228
229
P. Oxf. Griffith I 38 [TM 48879], P. Oxf. Griffith I 39 [TM 48545] and P. Oxf. Griffith I 41 [TM 48881], three mḳmḳ
without requests, state their purpose with similar formulas. BRESCIANI, the editor of these texts, read ỉw=y / ỉw=n
at the start of these formulas, but possibly this should be interpreted as an abridged writing for ỉ.(ỉr)=y / ỉ.(ỉr)=n,
since a second tense construction fits the context much better: cf. BAKECH in P. Sorb. IV, p. 44 note 9.
Closing formula
Three texts are closed by sẖ (n) [date] (“written in [date]”), and one by sẖ-bȝk
(“written by the servant”). These closing formulas are borrowed from Demotic
letters.230
2.4. Content
The mḳmḳ without petitioning function are documents of various nature. Two texts
contain requests, but seem to be addressed to private persons. P. Berlin Dem. 15592
ined. l. 20-29 [TM 91946] is a message by a man and his wife to two siblings of the
man, the precise purpose of which is unclear. In P. Fitzhugh Dem. 1 [TM 51408], a
farmer complains to his lessor, a royal farmer, about a theft, and asks him to
forward his mḳmḳ to the komomisthotes and to stop the accused from coming to the
petitioner’s land again. According to the definition of petitions proposed at the start
of this study, only documents addressed to authorities can qualify as petitions, and
for that reason P. Fitzhugh Dem. 1 [TM 51408] cannot be interpreted as a petition in
the strict sense. Again it needs to be stressed, however, that this rigid distinction
between petitions and other kinds of documents is highly artificial.
The remaining 11 texts do not make a request:
- P. Oxf. Griffith I 38 [TM 48879], P. Oxf. Griffith I 39 [TM 48545] and P. Oxf. Griffith I
41 [TM 48881] are notifications about, respectively, a case of violence, the
misconduct of a lesonis and problems related to oil and wine deliveries in the
temple of Soknopaios in Soknopaiou Nesos.231 These documents do not make a
request.232 Their purpose is explicitly stated by the submitters: “for the examination
of the named business” (P. Oxf. Griffith I 38 [TM 48879], l. 10: r pȝ šn nȝ md.w rn=w),
“in order not to let anything in the world be hidden from the prophet of Bastet” (P.
Oxf. Griffith I 39 [TM 48545], l. 21: r tm dy ḥp md pȝ tȝ pȝ ḥm-nṯr Bȝst.t), and “in order
to prevent accusations against us” (P. Oxf. Griffith 41 [TM 48881], l. 15: (r) tm ḫȝʿ lwḥ
ḥr-ḏȝḏȝ=n).
230
DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 165-168, 228-230, 327.
231
Cf. CHAUFRAY, ‘Des lésônes en action dans le temple de Soknopaios’.
232
For Greek notifications of crime without request, see p. 138-139, 199-200.
- P. Loeb 40 [TM 48850], P. Loeb 53 [TM 48851] and P. Loeb 60 [TM 48852], probably
three fragmentary copies of one and the same mḳmḳ, are applications for enrolment
in the desert guard.233
- O. Hor 1 [TM 48969], O. Hor 21 [TM 48988] and O. Hor 31 [TM 48438] are drafts for
mḳmḳ, written on ostrakon. The first two texts are addressed by the temple scribe
Horos of Sebennytos to the priests of the sacred animal necropolis of North Saqqara:
in O. Hor 1 [TM 48969] he writes about his divine revelation concerning the royal
dynasty and the war with Antiochos IV, and in O. Hor 21 [TM 48988] about his role
in the reforms designed to stop the abuses in the ibis sanctuary. O. Hor 31 [TM
48438] is a message by three prophets to the eponymous priest of Alexander. The
nature of this communication is not clear; at some point, the wife of the eponymous
priest is mentioned.
- O. Strasb. Dem. 246 ined. [TM 316909] and P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8334 ined. [TM 873606]
are two reports of uncertain nature.
233
Cf. DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 326; ZAUZICH, ‘Zu einigen Papyri Loeb’, p. 151. For similar applications in the
Greek ὑπόμνημα format, see chapter II, p. 140.
Chapter V: synthesis
In the previous chapters, all types of texts examined in this study have been
discussed individually. This chapter aims to offer a more synthetic view, through a
general survey of the major formal and content-related characteristics of ἐντεύξεις,
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ. Both petitions and documents with other functions are
taken into account in this survey.
1. FORM
1.1. Structure
In their fullest form, Ptolemaic petitions consist of five consecutive elements: first, a
prescript identifies the addressee and the petitioner; second, the petitioner explains
the situation in a descriptive section, providing the necessary background for his or
her entreaty; third, the actual request, the heart of the petition, is formulated;
fourth, the request is followed by a rhetorical conclusion; fifth and last, a closing
formula is added. Not all Ptolemaic petitions contain a rhetorical conclusion and
closing, however:
TOTAL NUMBER OF TEXTS WITH CONCLUSION WITHOUT CONCLUSION
ROYAL ἔντευξις PETITIONS 269 181 8
234 96 % 4%
(n = 189)
NON-ROYAL ἔντευξις PETITIONS 41 8 19
(n = 27) 30 % 70 %
EARLY ὑπόμνημα PETITIONS 14 3 8
(n = 11) 27 % 73 %
LATER ὑπόμνημα PETITIONS 511 192 91
(n = 283) 68 % 32 %
FRAGMENTARY GREEK PETITIONS 44 17 2
(n = 19) 89 % 11 %
mḳmḳ PETITIONS 32 7 8
(n = 15) 47 % 53 %
234
The denominators (n) used to calculate the percentages in this table only include the texts in which the
presence or absence of a rhetorical conclusion can still be assessed.
170 CHAPTER V: SYNTHESIS
TOTAL NUMBER OF TEXTS WITH CLOSING WITHOUT CLOSING

ROYAL ἔντευξις PETITIONS 269 149 2
235 99 % 1%
(n = 151)
NON-ROYAL ἔντευξις PETITIONS 41 32 1
(n = 33) 97 % 3%
EARLY ὑπόμνημα PETITIONS 14 7 4
(n = 11) 64 % 36 %
LATER ὑπόμνημα PETITIONS 511 247 8
(n = 255) 97 % 3%
(n = 15) 93 % 7%
mḳmḳ PETITIONS 32 14 3
(n = 17) 82 % 18 %
The structure of texts without petitioning function written in the ἔντευξις,

ὑπόμνημα and mḳmḳ format is more diverse and free. Their only stable component
is their prescript. Many of them make requests and contain a closing, but not all of
them do:
TOTAL NUMBER OF TEXTS WITH REQUEST WITHOUT REQUEST
NON-ROYAL ἐντεύξεις WITHOUT PETITIONING FUNCTION 65 47 7
236 87 % 13 %
(n = 54)
EARLY ὑπομνήματα W.P.F. 98 52 30
(n = 82) 63 % 37 %
LATER ὑπομνήματα W.P.F. 74 33 22
(n = 55) 60 % 40 %
mḳmḳ W.P.F. 13 2 11
(n = 13) 15 % 85 %
TOTAL NUMBER OF TEXTS WITH CLOSING WITHOUT CLOSING

NON-ROYAL ἐντεύξεις WITHOUT PETITIONING FUNCTION 65 51 0
237 100 %
(n = 51)
EARLY ὑπομνήματα W.P.F. 98 31 35
(n = 66) 47 % 53 %
LATER ὑπομνήματα W.P.F. 74 27 9
(n = 36) 75 % 25 %
mḳmḳ W.P.F. 13 4 3
(n = 7) 57 % 43 %
Several texts, mostly but not exclusively without petitioning function, immediately
start with a request, without preceding descriptive section: 22 out of 112 early
ὑπομνήματα (20 %; 1 petition), 15 out of 106 non-royal ἐντεύξεις (14 %; 3 petitions),
235
presence or absence of a closing can still be assessed.
236
presence or absence of a request can still be assessed.
237
presence or absence of a closing can still be assessed.
CHAPTER V: SYNTHESIS 171
7 out of 585 later ὑπομνήματα (1 %; 2 petitions) and 1 out of 45 mḳmḳ (2 %; text

without petitioning function).
Non-royal ἐντεύξεις and early ὑπομνήματα, both with and without petitioning
function, are generally more freely structured than the other types of texts. Their
requests are regularly split up in different parts or merged with descriptive
sections, resulting in a loose and irregular structure reminding of letters.
Three important observations can be made on the basis of this brief survey:
- The royal ἐντεύξεις constitute by far the most rigidly structured group of texts:
except for eight texts without rhetorical conclusion and two texts without closing
formula (drafts), all of them are structured according to the ideal petition scheme:
prescript - descriptive section - request - rhetorical conclusion - closing formula. In
other types of texts, deviations from this scheme are much more common.
- Non-royal ἐντεύξεις generally have a more elaborate structure than early

ὑπόμνηματα. First, non-royal ἐντεύξεις are more likely to contain requests (93 % of
all texts) than early ὑπομνήματα (68 % of all texts). Second, almost all non-royal
ἐντεύξεις (with one exception) end with a closing formula, whereas 51 % of the
early ὑπομνήματα omit this element. This consistent addition of a closing formula
was a common characteristic of royal and non-royal ἐντεύξεις.
- The later ὑπομνήματα, which replaced the early ὑπομνήματα at about 240 - 220 BC,
clearly have a more elaborate structure than their predecessors. First, later
ὑπομνήματα are more likely to contain requests (96 % of all texts) than early
ὑπομνήματα (68 % of all texts). Second, the requests of early ὑπομνήματα are
regularly split up in different parts or merged with descriptive sections, whereas
the requests of later ὑπομνήματα are not. Third, more early ὑπομνήματα do not add
a descriptive section before the request (20 % of all texts) than later ὑπομνήματα (1
% of all texts). Fourth, there are more later ὑπομνήματα with rhetorical conclusions
(68 % of all petitions) than early ὑπομνήματα (27 % of all petitions). Fifth and last,
there are more early ὑπομνήματα without closing formula (51 % of all texts) than
later ὑπομνήματα (6 % of all texts). In several of these respects, the later
ὑπομνήματα are more similar to ἐντεύξεις (and in particular royal ἐντεύξεις) than
to early ὑπομνήματα.238
238
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 181.
1.2. Prescript
As discussed in the previous chapters, ἐντεύξεις, early ὑπομνήματα, later

ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ each have their specific prescript, used to identify the
addressee and submitter of the text. The order of their identification is summarised
in the following table:
TOTAL ADDRESSEE - SUBMITTER - ADDRESSEE SUBMITTER NO ADDRESSEE
NUMBER OF SUBMITTER ADDRESSEE WITHOUT WITHOUT OR SUBMITTER
TEXTS SUBMITTER ADDRESSEE
ROYAL 269 213 0 0 1 0
ἐντεύξεις 239 100 % 0%
(n = 214)
NON-ROYAL 106 105 0 0 0 0
ἐντεύξεις (n = 105) 100 %
EARLY 112 84 6 8 5 3
ὑπομνήματα (n = 106) 79 % 6% 8% 5% 3%
LATER 585 466 0 1 5 0
ὑπομνήματα (n = 472) 99 % 0% 1%
mḳmḳ 45 21 16 0 0 1
(n = 38) 55 % 42 % 3%
Normally, both the addressee and submitter are identified in the prescript. Most
exceptions to that rule can be found among the early ὑπομνήματα. Presumably, all
involved parties knew in these cases who submitted and received these messages,
and did consequently not find it necessary to include that information.
Alternatively, some of these texts may be drafts or abridged copies. A couple of
early ὑπομνήματα without addressee appear to be notes for personal use rather
than interpersonal communications.
Interestingly, the identification of the addressee usually precedes that of the

submitter in ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα and mḳmḳ prescripts, whereas in the Greek
tradition and Demotic documents predating the Hellenistic period, the submitter or
sender normally comes first.240 The inverted arrangement found in many ἐντεύξεις,
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ seems to have been a Hellenistic innovation, possibly
motivated by new norms of politeness.241 In Egyptian, this change of style was
239
The denominators (n) used to calculate the percentages in this table only include the texts that have
preserved their prescript.
240
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 160. Three Demotic letters from the 6th and
th
5 centuries BC use a similar inverted arrangement in their exterior address (DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 120-
121), but these are exceptions, probably due to Aramaic influence.
241
The same inverted arrangement can also be found in several 3rd century BC προσάγγελμα prescripts, in the
alternative epistolary prescript τῶι δεῖνι ὁ δεῖνα (χαίρειν), and in certain ʿn-smy prescripts. In other Demotic
documents (except for the three letters mentioned in the previous note), the identification of the sender or
submitter always precedes that of the addressee. BICKERMANN (‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p.
160-161) suggests that this innovation may have been inspired by Persian chancellery style. In Aramaic (as in
various other Ancient Near Eastern languages), the addressee is regularly put in front, although this was not
necessarily more polite: cf. WHITE, ‘The ancient epistolography group in retrospect’, p. 7.
somewhat less successful than in Greek: more than one third of the mḳmḳ prescripts
still put the submitter in front. In contrast to the ὑπόμνημα prescript, which
underwent a radical change at about 240 - 220 BC, the mḳmḳ prescript always
remained essentially the same: the order in which the addressee and submitter are
identified never became fixed, as in the later ὑπομνήματα, and the word mḳmḳ was
never omitted from the formula, as was the word ὑπόμνημα. This change only
appears to have been enforced in Greek.
The addressee is usually identified with both a name and a title in ἐντεύξεις,
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ, but there are some exceptions.242 The addressee’s title is
regularly omitted from the prescript in non-royal ἐντεύξεις (89 out of 106 texts; 84
%) and early ὑπομνήματα (92 out of 112 texts; 82 %), but only rarely in mḳmḳ (3 out
of 45 texts; 7 %) and later ὑπομνήματα (9 out of 585 texts; 2 %). This omission seems
to have been a typically early phenomenon, which was discouraged from the late 3 rd
century BC onwards. Evidently, all royal ἐντεύξεις address the king and queen with
their titles. Colleges of officials and priests are only identified by title, not with
individual names.
1.3. Introduction of the body of the text
The body of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ can start in various ways. The
following table lists the most typical introductions:
TOTAL FORMULAS WITH GENITIVE ABSOLUTE DATE ἐπεί / IMMEDIATE
NUMBER OF ἀδικέω / gmʿ CONSTRUCTION INDICATION ἐπειδή REQUEST
TEXTS
ROYAL ἔντευξις 269 122 19 14 4 0
PETITIONS (n = 66 % 10 % 8% 2%
243
185)
NON-ROYAL ἔντευξις 41 11 2 1 0 3
PETITIONS (n = 33) 33 % 6% 3% 9%
NON-ROYAL ἐντεύξεις 65 0 1 0 1 12
WITHOUT PETITIONING (n = 55) 2% 2% 22 %
FUNCTION
EARLY ὑπόμνημα 14 0 0 0 1 1
PETITIONS (n = 13) 8% 8%
EARLY ὑπομνήματα 98 0 3 1 2 21
W.P.F. (n = 86) 3% 1% 2% 24 %
LATER ὑπόμνημα 511 61 90 80 18 2
PETITIONS (n = 349) 17 % 26 % 23 % 5% 1%
242
VEÏSSE (‘L’expression de l’identité dans les pétitions d’époque ptolémaïque’) gives an excellent overview of the
ways in which Ptolemaic petitioners identify themselves in the prescript of their petitions.
243
The denominators (n) used to calculate the percentages in this table only include the texts of which the
beginning is preserved.
TOTAL FORMULAS WITH GENITIVE ABSOLUTE DATE ἐπεί / IMMEDIATE

NUMBER OF ἀδικέω / gmʿ CONSTRUCTION INDICATION ἐπειδή REQUEST
TEXTS
LATER ὑπομνήματα 74 1 6 3 3 5
W.P.F. (n = 66) 2% 9% 5% 5% 8%
FRAGMENTARY GREEK 44 5 0 0 0 0
PETITIONS (n = 5) 100 %
mḳmḳ PETITIONS 32 6 0 8 0 0
(n = 18) 33 % 44 %
mḳmḳ W.P.F. 13 0 0 2 0 1
(n = 11) 18 % 9%
Royal ἐντεύξεις and later ὑπομνήματα are generally introduced in a more elaborate
way than non-royal ἐντεύξεις and early ὑπομνήματα. Genitive absolute
constructions, date indications and the conjunctions ἐπεί / ἐπειδή appear more
frequently in the first group of texts than in the second. In non-royal ἐντεύξεις and
early ὑπομνήματα, it is more common to immediately start with the request,
without preceding descriptive section, especially in the texts without petitioning
function. In mḳmḳ, date indications are especially popular. Possibly, mḳmḳ were
influenced by Demotic letters in this respect: many Demotic letters are introduced
by the formula ḫpr + date.244
The introductory formulas with ἀδικέω and gmʿ (“to wrong”), which appear in 204
petitions, deserve some further attention.245 Evidently, all of these texts are dispute-
related. The formulas appear most frequently (in both absolute and relative
numbers) in royal ἐντεύξεις, but also in a considerable number of non-royal
ἐντεύξεις, later ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ. Possibly, the later ὑπόμνημα borrowed this
formula from the ἔντευξις.246 The Greek formulas with ἀδικέω fall into two major
categories: formulas of the type ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό, which constitute the largest group,
and formulas with the related participle constructions ἀδικούμενος / ἠδικημένος /
ἀδικηθεὶς ὑπὸ, which are much rarer and only appear in royal ἐντεύξεις (5 texts)
and later ὑπομνήματα (15 texts). During the 2nd century BC, these participle
constructions are regularly strengthened by intensifiers or integrated in more
elaborate expressions. The Demotic formulas with gmʿ, which were probably
modelled after the Greek formulas, are quite varied: four are passive constructions,
like the Greek formulas, and two are active constructions of the form [accused] gmʿ
r-ḥr=y, “[accused] is wronging me”.
244
245
One early προσάγγελμα petition, P. Lond. VII 1980 [TM 1543] = P. Lond. VII 1981 [TM 2502] (see chapter VI, p.
200) and one later ὑπόμνημα without petitioning function, CdE 42 p. 355-359 [TM 115834] (see chapter II, p. 134,
139) also start with the formula ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό, but these exceptional documents are not taken into account in
this discussion. For the concept of ἀδικία in the papyri, see MODRZEJEWSKI, Droit et justice dans le monde grec et
hellénistique, p. 91-110.
246
Cf. COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 160.
The following table summarises the frequency of introductory formulas with

ἀδικέω in royal ἔντευξις and later ὑπόμνημα petitions over the centuries:247
TOTAL NUMBER OF DISPUTE-RELATED TEXTS WITH PRESERVED TEXTS WITH
INTRODUCTION ἀδικέω
3RD CENTURY BC ROYAL ἔντευξις 127,5 87 %
PETITIONS
2ND CENTURY BC ROYAL ἔντευξις 31,5 37 %
PETITIONS
1ST CENTURY BC ROYAL ἔντευξις 5 0%
PETITIONS
3RD CENTURY BC LATER ὑπόμνημα 33,468 13 %
PETITIONS
2ND CENTURY BC LATER ὑπόμνημα 226,407 24 %
PETITIONS
1ST CENTURY BC LATER ὑπόμνημα 48,125 4%
PETITIONS
As already noted by DI BITONTO, introductory formulas with ἀδικέω grew less

popular over time.248 This evolution is most pronounced for the royal ἐντεύξεις:
from the 3rd to the 2nd century BC, the use of these formulas decreases by half; in the
1st century BC, they disappear altogether. It has to be kept in mind that only few
royal ἐντεύξεις from the 1st century BC are preserved, however. For the later
ὑπομνήματα, the situation is slightly different: formulas with ἀδικέω appear more
often in later ὑπομνήματα from the 2nd century BC than in those from the 3rd
century BC, and two later ὑπομνήματα from the 1st century BC also use formulas of
this type. One mḳmḳ petition introduced by a formula with gmʿ also dates from the
1st century BC. Still, formulas of this type were clearly on their way out at this time,
as is confirmed by their complete disappearance in petitions from the Roman era.249
1.4. Introduction of the request
The requests of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ can be introduced in various

ways. The following table lists the most common request introductions of the Greek
texts:
247
The dates of texts that are not securely dated to a single century have been “weighed” in order to include
them in this survey: see introduction, p. 16 note 52. Non-royal ἐντεύξεις are not included in this survey, because
all of them date from the 3rd century BC; fragmentary Greek petitions and mḳmḳ are not included, because there
are so few of them.
248
DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 68; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 12-14.
249
MASCELLARI, Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano, p. 21, 214.
TOTAL δέομαι ἀξιῶ ἀξιῶ καλῶς IMPERATIVE / ἐπιδίδωμί /

NUMBER OF δεόμενος ποιήσεις / VETITIVE προσαγγέλλω σοι
TEXTS ἂν ὅπως
ποιήσαις
ROYAL 269 163 10 9 1 0 0
ἐντεύξεις (n = 89 % 5% 5% 1%
250
183)
NON-ROYAL 106 23 4 0 29 36 0
ἐντεύξεις (n = 77) 30 % 5% 38 % 47 %
EARLY 112 3 5 0 30 29 0
ὑπομνήματα (n = 63) 5% 8% 48 % 46 %
LATER 585 6 270 17 8 5 34
ὑπομνήματα (n = 346) 2% 78 % 5% 2% 1% 10 %
FRAGMENTARY 44 8 11 3 1 1 0
GREEK (n = 24) 33 % 46 % 13 % 4% 4%
PETITIONS
Several trends can be observed in the use of these request introductions.

Introductions with δέομαι are closely connected to the ἔντευξις format, whereas
introductions with ἀξιῶ are closely connected to the later ὑπόμνημα format.251 The
combination ἀξιῶ (προσ)δεόμενος appears in both royal ἐντεύξεις and later
ὑπομνήματα. Requests introduced by καλῶς ποιήσεις / ἂν ποιήσαις and requests
formulated in the imperative or vetitive form, both of which can also be found in
many letters (ἐπιστολαί), are mostly used in non-royal ἐντεύξεις and early
ὑπομνήματα. Requests introduced by formulas of the type ἐπιδίδωμί / προσαγγέλλω
σοι ὅπως, finally, only appear in later ὑπομνήματα, from the 2nd century BC
onwards.
Recently, DICKEY published a comparative study of request constructions in literary

texts from the Classical period on the one hand and petitions and letters from
Graeco-Roman Egypt on the other hand.252 One of the major arguments in this
article is that the use of imperative requests declined considerably during the
Hellenistic period in favour of more elaborate request phrases: most requests in
Greek literary texts from the Classical period are formulated in the imperative form,
regardless of the social distance between the requester and the addressee; in
petitions and letters from Graeco-Roman Egypt, by contrast, requests are often
formulated in a more formal and explicitly polite way (e.g. δέομαι, ἀξιῶ, καλῶς
250
preserved a request introduction. Some texts contain more than one type of introduction, so the percentages
should not be added up.
251
COLLOMP (Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 95) calls the request introductions with
ἀξιῶ that appear in royal ἐντεύξεις “inexactitudes”. GUÉRAUD (ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxvi) is more cautious in his choice
of words and speaks of “exceptions”. DI BITONTO (‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 15) suggests that these ἐντεύξεις may
have been written by the petitioners themselves instead of professional scribes. This suggestion by DI BITONTO
might well account for the appearance of ἀξιῶ in P. Cairo Zen. V 59832 [TM 1456], written by Zenon, and UPZ I 4
[TM 3395], UPZ I 6 [TM 3397], UPZ I 15 [TM 3406] and UPZ I 16 [TM 3407], from the archive of the katochoi of the
Serapeion. Δέομαι is already attested as request introduction during the Classical period, ἀξιῶ not: cf. DICKEY,
‘Emotional language and formulae of persuasion in Greek papyrus letters’, p. 246-247.
252
DICKEY, ‘Emotional language and formulae of persuasion in Greek papyrus letters’.
ποιήσεις / ἂν ποιήσαις), and imperative requests are only directed to social

inferiors. It seems problematic to compare the language of literary texts to the
language of petitions and letters, however. According to DICKEY, the fact that the
request phrases from the Classical period can only be reconstructed on the basis of
literary texts does not pose a serious obstacle to her undertaking, since some of the
classical authors, like Xenophon and Menander, regularly use conversational
language. But she does not address the issue that most requests in literary texts
appear in dialogues, i.e. oral contexts, the language of which can fundamentally
differ from written language found in petitions and letters. Further, her remark
concerning the use of imperative requests in documents from the Hellenistic period
deserves some nuance: imperative requests to superiors are still attested in several
Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα. In general, this way of phrasing requests does
indeed appear to have been less polite in Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα,
though: imperative and vetitive requests are far less common in petitions (14 out of
573 texts with preserved request introduction; 2 %) than in texts without
petitioning function (57 out of 126 texts with preserved request introduction; 45 %),
which serve more ordinary purposes, and are never used when addressing the
sovereign. Interestingly, most imperative requests appear in non-royal ἐντεύξεις
and early ὑπομνήματα, all of which date from the earlier 3rd century BC, and only a
handful in later ὑπομνήματα: presumably, imperative requests were still considered
more appropriate during the early Ptolemaic period.
Many texts attach polite expressions of the type εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ or ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται
to the request, in order to soften its tone:253
TOTAL NUMBER OF TEXTS εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται
ROYAL ἐντεύξεις 269 74 13
254 33 % 6%
(n = 221)
NON-ROYAL ἐντεύξεις 106 34 4
(n = 81) 42 % 5%
EARLY ὑπομνήματα 112 12 5
(n = 65) 18 % 8%
LATER ὑπομνήματα 585 0 155
(n = 382) 41 %
(n = 27) 11 % 11 %
These polite expressions are combined with several introductory formulas:

TOTAL NUMBER OF δέομαι ἀξιῶ ἀξιῶ καλῶς ποιήσεις / IMPERATIVE / OTHER
ATTESTATIONS δεόμενος ἂν ποιήσαις VETITIVE
εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ 126 (in 123 texts) 85 1 3 11 23 3
67 % 1% 2% 9% 18 % 2%
253
The first formula is already attested during the Classical period, the second formula not: cf. DICKEY, ‘Emotional
language and formulae of persuasion in Greek papyrus letters’, p. 245.
254
preserved part of the request.
TOTAL NUMBER OF δέομαι ἀξιῶ ἀξιῶ καλῶς ποιήσεις / IMPERATIVE / OTHER

ATTESTATIONS δεόμενος ἂν ποιήσαις VETITIVE
ἐάν (σοι) 183 (in 180 texts) 8 142 8 7 6 12
φαίνηται 4% 78 % 4% 4% 3% 7%
A clear pattern can be discerned in the appearance of these expressions.255 Εἴ (σοι)

δοκεῖ appears most frequently with δέομαι, whereas ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται is most
often combined with ἀξιῶ.256 Since requests with δέομαι are closely connected to
the ἔντευξις, and requests with ἀξιῶ to the later ὑπόμνημα, it does not surprise that
εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ is by far the most common formula in ἐντεύξεις and ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται
in later ὑπομνήματα. For the early ὑπομνήματα, this difference is less pronounced:
12 early ὑπομνήματα contain εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ and five ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται. Lastly, it can
be noted that εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ and ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται are never added to request
introductions of the type ἐπιδίδωμί / προσαγγέλλω σοι ὅπως. It is not clear why the
first expression is always formulated in the indicative mood and the second in the
subjunctive. There are a few exceptions to this rule from the 3rd century BC (three
attestations of ἐάν σοι δόξηι and four attestations of εἴ σοι φαίνεται).
Several request introductions in mḳmḳ strongly resemble the above-discussed Greek

constructions and may have been inspired by them: tw=y tbḥ n-ỉm=s (mtw=k) (“I beg
(you) ...”) reminds of δέομαι and ἀξιῶ; nȝ-ʿn=f ỉw=k r ỉr=f (“it would be good if you do
it ...”) reminds of καλῶς ποιήσεις / ἂν ποιήσαις; ỉ.ỉr=y dy n=k pȝ mḳmḳ ỉw=k r (“it is to
you that I give the mḳmḳ, while you will ...”) reminds of ἐπιδίδωμί σοι τὸ ὑπόμνημα
ὅπως; ỉw=f ḫpr ỉw=s ḥs (“if it seems good”) reminds of εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ and ἐάν (σοι)
φαίνηται. Other mḳmḳ use more typical Demotic formulas.
1.5. Rhetorical conclusion
conclusions stressing that the petitioners will be able to pay their dues to the
government if their requests are granted, (3) conclusions stressing that the
petitioners will be able to tend to the cult of the gods and rulers if their requests are
granted, and (4) conclusions stressing that the petitioners will be able to do justice
255
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 73-74; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 18;
DICKEY, ‘Emotional language and formulae of persuasion in Greek papyrus letters’, p. 245.
256
Interestingly, both the request introduction δέομαι and the formula εἴ (σοι) δοκεῖ are already attested during
the Classical period, whereas the request introduction ἀξιῶ and the formula ἐάν (σοι) φαίνηται are not: see
above, p. 176 note 251, 177 note 253.
themselves if their requests are granted. The following table summarises the use of
these different types of conclusions in Ptolemaic petitions:257
TOTAL CONCLUSION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION OTHER RHETORICAL
NUMBER OF OF TYPE 1 OF TYPE 2 OF TYPE 3 OF TYPE 4 CONCLUSIONS
TEXTS
ROYAL ἔντευξις 269 130 1 10 0 10
PETITIONS (n = 92 % 1% 7% 7%
258
141)
NON-ROYAL 41 7 0 0 1 0
ἔντευξις (n = 8) 88 % 12 %
PETITIONS
EARLY ὑπόμνημα 14 2 1 0 0 0
PETITIONS (n = 3) 67 % 33 %
LATER ὑπόμνημα 511 139 25 8 3 8
PETITIONS (n = 173) 80 % 14 % 5% 2% 5%
FRAGMENTARY 44 9 1 0 1 0
GREEK PETITIONS (n = 11) 82 % 9% 9%
mḳmḳ PETITIONS 32 3 4 0 0 0
(n = 7) 43 % 57 %
Conclusions of the second type are far more common in later ὑπομνήματα than in
royal ἐντεύξεις, but apart from that there are no apparent connections between
specific types of conclusions and specific types of petitions. Still, the use of these
different types of conclusions was not entirely random: conclusions of the second
type mostly appear in petitions by royal farmers, and conclusions of the third type
are only attested in petitions by priests and other persons connected to temples.
Conclusions of the fourth type only appear to be used during the 3rd century BC.
Among the conclusions of the first type, the appeals to the addressee’s support,
many different motifs can be found. The most important ones are appeals to justice
(δίκαιον / δίκαια / hp: 119 texts), which can only be found in dispute-related
petitions, and appeals to the addressee’s help (βοήθεια: 61 texts), assistance
(ἀντίληψις: 51 texts), philanthropy (φιλανθρωπία: 41 texts), beneficence (εὐεργεσία:
9 texts), and considerateness (εὐγνώμονα: 6 texts). 259 There are no clear
connections between specific motifs and specific types of petitions, but there does
seem to be some chronological variation: appeals to the ἀντίληψις and εὐεργεσία of
the addressee only appear in texts from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC. Appeals to
257
One later ὑπόμνημα without petitioning function, SB XIV 11968 [TM 4291] (see chapter II, p. 135, 140-141),
also contains a rhetorical conclusion, but this exceptional document is not taken into account in this discussion.
258
preserved a rhetorical conclusion (of which more is left than only τούτου (γὰρ / δὲ) γενομένου or τούτων (γὰρ /
δὲ) γενομένων). Some texts contain more than one type of conclusion, so the percentages should not be added
up.
259
These conclusions are closely intertwined with the Ptolemaic state ideology: cf. SCHORN, ‘Das Idealbild des
Beamten in den Papyri der ptolemäischen Zeit’; SCHUBART, ‘Das hellenistische Köningsideal nach Inschriften und
Papyri’; THOMPSON, ‘The good official of Ptolemaic Egypt’; WYNS, ‘The State Ideology of the Ptolemies: Origins and
Influences’.
justice appear to have become less popular in royal ἐντεύξεις from the 2nd century
BC onwards.260
Most Greek rhetorical conclusions are introduced in one of the two following ways.
First, they can form a separate sentence, introduced by the formula τούτου (γὰρ /
δὲ) γενομένου or τούτων (γὰρ / δὲ) γενομένων, typically followed by a verb in the
future indicative (206 texts). Second, they can be directly attached to the request as
final clauses, introduced by ἵνα or ὅπως, typically followed by a verb in the
subjunctive (164 texts). 261 In general, these two constructions are used
interchangeably.262 Non-royal ἐντεύξεις and early ὑπομνήματα with the formula
τούτου (γὰρ / δὲ) γενομένου or τούτων (γὰρ / δὲ) γενομένων are not preserved,
however. Probably, the later ὑπόμνημα borrowed this formula from the royal
ἔντευξις. 16 Greek conclusions are introduced in other ways. The conclusions of
Demotic mḳmḳ are generally formulated in a similar way as those of Greek petitions;
one or two of them are literal translations from Greek.
Many royal ἐντεύξεις from the 3rd century BC add direct addresses (e.g. βασιλεῦ; 110
texts) and formulas of the type ἐπὶ σὲ καταφυγών (39 texts) to the conclusion. The
direct address never appears in conclusions of other types of petitions, but the
καταφυγή formula is also attested in the conclusions of one non-royal ἔντευξις (P.
Cairo Zen. II 59224 [TM 869]) and one early ὑπόμνημα (SB VI 9556 col. ii [TM
5787]). 263 During the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, these elements never appear in
rhetorical conclusions, but similar formulas expressing the petitioners’ refuge to
the addressee can sometimes be found in other parts of petitions.264
260
Cf. COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 119; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p.
52.
261
Sometimes, part of the actual request is integrated into such final clauses as well, making it hard to make a
strict distinction between the request and conclusion: cf. COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique
des Lagides, p. 117-118; DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, p. 137-138; DI BITONTO, ‘Le
petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 100-102.
262
COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 116; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 51.
263
Another non-royal ἔντευξις from 263-229 BC, P. Cairo Zen. III 59495 [TM 1133], uses a related expression to
introduce its conclusion: πρὸς σὲ οὖν καταφυγγάνομεν, ἵνα ἐλεημοσύνης τύχωμεν. For the use of direct
addresses in papyrus documents from Graeco-Roman Egypt, see DICKEY, ‘The Greek Address System of the
Roman Period and Its Relationship to Latin’.
264
Cf. COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 123-124; DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di
petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, p. 117, 137; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 70-
71. In rare cases, καταφυγή formulas had already been used in the descriptive sections and requests of 3rd
century BC royal ἐντεύξεις as well: see P. Enteux. 24 [TM 3299] (221 BC) and P. Sorb. III 127 [TM 121874] (222-218
BC).
1.6. Closing formula
Ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ can be closed in various ways. The following
table lists all closings of the Greek texts:
TOTAL NUMBER OF εὐτύχει εὐτύχει + διευτύχει ἔρρωσο ἔρρωσο ONLY DATE +
TEXTS DATE / DATE + DATE DATE παρὰ
+ εὐτύχει τοῦ
δεῖνος
ROYAL 269 145 0 4 0 0 0 0
ἔντευξις 265 97 % 3%
(n = 149)
PETITIONS
NON-ROYAL 41 32 0 0 0 0 0 0
ἔντευξις (n =32 ) 100 %
PETITIONS
NON-ROYAL 65 41 1 0 5 3 1 0
ἐντεύξεις (n = 51) 80 % 2% 10 % 6% 2%
WITHOUT
PETITIONING
FUNCTION
EARLY 14 6 0 0 0 0 1 0
ὑπόμνημα (n = 7) 86 % 14 %
PETITIONS
EARLY 98 19 1 0 3 3 4 1
ὑπομνήματα (n = 31) 61 % 3% 10 % 10 % 13 % 3%
W.P.F.
LATER 511 211 14 3 2 5 12 0
ὑπόμνημα (n = 247) 85 % 6% 1% 1% 2% 5%
PETITIONS
LATER 74 8 7 0 1 0 11 0
ὑπομνήματα (n = 27) 30 % 26 % 4% 40 %
W.P.F.
FRAGMENTARY 44 13 0 0 1 0 0 0
GREEK (n = 14) 93 % 7%
PETITIONS
Εὐτύχει serves as standard closing formula in both ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα,

during all periods (attested in 89 % of the texts with preserved closing).
Exceptionally, non-royal ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα can also be closed by ἔρρωσο
(attested in 4 % of the texts with preserved closing), the standard closing formula of
letters (ἐπιστολαί).266 The other way around, εὐτύχει can exceptionally be found in
letters as well, mostly in the Zenon archive.267 As a consequence, documents cannot
265
preserved a closing.
266
Cf. ZIEMANN, De epistularum graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae, p. 350-356.
267
Letters belonging to the Zenon archive with εὐτύχει: P. Cairo Zen. I 59080 [TM 735]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59416 [TM
1056]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59426 [TM 1066]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59526 [TM 1163]; P. Col. Zen. I 6 [TM 1728]; P. Col. Zen. I 9
[TM 1730]; P. Col. Zen. I 11 [TM 1732]; P. Col. Zen. I 18 [TM 1738]; P. Col. Zen. II 64 [TM 1779]; PSI IV 326 [TM
2023]; PSI VI 603 [TM 2212]. Letters from other contexts with εὐτύχει: P. Petrie Kleon 13 [TM 7667]; UPZ I 70 [TM
be safely identified as either ἔντευξις / ὑπόμνημα or ἐπιστολή on the basis of these

salutation formulas alone, although they offer a good indication. In a substantial
number of ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα, the date is added at the end of the text, both
in combination with εὐτύχει / ἔρρωσο and without final salutation. Lastly, four
royal ἐντεύξεις and three later ὑπόμνημα petitions, all from the 1st century BC, are
closed by διευτύχει: these are the only seven Ptolemaic documents that use this
formula; during the Roman period, this closing became very popular.268
The closing formulas of mḳmḳ, which all start with sẖ (“written”), are borrowed
from Demotic letters. In one mḳmḳ translation of a ὑπόμνημα, the Greek salutation
εὐτύχει is translated as ỉw-ỉw=k wḏȝ (“while you are doing well”).
2. CONTENT
In this study, all ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ are divided in four major groups
with regard to their content: (1) dispute-related petitions, (2) non-dispute-related
petitions, (3) fragmentary or incompletely published petitions of uncertain nature
and (4) texts without petitioning function. The following table lists the number of
documents in each category:
TOTAL DISPUTE- NON-DISPUTE- PETITIONS OF TEXTS WITHOUT
NUMBER OF RELATED RELATED PETITIONS UNCERTAIN NATURE PETITIONING FUNCTION
TEXTS PETITIONS
ROYAL ἐντεύξεις 269 226 23 20 0
84 % 9% 7%
NON-ROYAL 106 40 1 0 65
ἐντεύξεις 38 % 1% 61 %
EARLY ὑπομνήματα 112 14 0 0 98
13 % 88 %
LATER ὑπομνήματα 585 440 14 57 74
75 % 2% 10 % 13 %
FRAGMENTARY GREEK 44 38 1 5 0
PETITIONS 86 % 2% 11 %
mḳmḳ 45 21 2 9 13
47 % 4% 20 % 29 %
Artificial as the maintained distinctions between texts with and without petitioning
function and dispute-related and non-dispute-related petitions may be (see
introduction, p. 6-12), this overview does allow two important observations. First, it
can be noted that a large majority of the Ptolemaic petitions are connected with a
3461]; UPZ I 73 [TM 3464]; UPZ I 78 [TM 3469]; UPZ I 93 [TM 3484]. Cf. COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la
diplomatique des Lagides, p. 66.
268
MASCELLARI, ‘Il salute finale delle petizioni nei papyri di epoca romana’; ZIEMANN, De epistularum graecarum
formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae, p. 335.
dispute. Second, certain types of documents are more regularly used for petitioning
than others: all royal ἐντεύξεις and most later ὑπομνήματα are petitions; among the
non-royal ἐντεύξεις and early ὑπομνήματα, many more texts without petitioning
function can be found.
2.1. Dispute-related petitions
Dispute-related petitions constitute the largest group of documents. These petitions

relate to various themes:
DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE-
RELATED ROYAL RELATED NON- RELATED EARLY RELATED LATER RELATED RELATED
ἔντευξις ROYAL ὑπόμνημα ὑπόμνημα FRAGMENTARY mḳmḳ
PETITIONS ἔντευξις PETITIONS PETITIONS GREEK PETITIONS
PETITIONS PETITIONS
TOTAL NUMBER 226 40 14 440 38 21
OF TEXTS
269 30 4 0 65 4 1
VIOLENCE
270 10 % 15 % 11 % 5%
13 %
MISCONDUCT / 32 9 1 102 3 1
NEGLIGENCE 14 % 23 % 7% 23 % 8% 5%
271
AUTHORITIES
272 7 10 6 24 9 0
DETENTION
3% 25 % 43 % 5% 24 %
273 25 4 3 66 4 6
THEFT
11 % 10 % 21 % 15 % 11 % 29 %
DAMAGE TO 13 0 1 33 1 0
274 6% 7% 7% 3%
PROPERTY
269
nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 75-77; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 22-24; RUPPRECHT, ‘Straftaten und Rechtsschutz’,
p. 141-143. For the concept of ὕβρις in Graeco-Roman Egypt, cf. HUE-ARCE, La violence interpersonelle en Égypte au
Nouvel Empire et à l’époque gréco-romaine, p. 37-38; RUPPRECHT, ‘Hybris’.
270
Many texts relate to more than one theme, so the percentages should not be added up.
271
Cf. BAUSCHATZ, ‘The Strong Arm of the Law?’; DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, p. 121-
123; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 77-79; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 24-25;
PEREMANS, ‘Die Amtsmißbräuche im ptolemäischen Ägypten’.
272
Cf. BAUSCHATZ, ‘Ptolemaic prisons reconsidered’; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 25-26.
273
nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 80-83; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 28-30; GROTKAMP, ‘Diebstahl im ptolemäischen
Ägypten’; RUPPRECHT, ‘Straftaten und Rechtsschutz’, p. 144-145.
274
nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 85; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 31-32. Illegal grazing (cf. PAPATHOMAS in P. Heid.
VII, p. 60-64) is also included in this category.

PETITIONS PETITIONS
USE / 46 2 1 47 3 7
OWNERSHIP 20 % 5% 7% 11 % 8% 33 %
IMMOVABLE
275
PROPERTY
LEASE / 18 0 1 18 1 1
276 8% 7% 4% 3% 5%
RENTAL
CONSTRUCTIONS 9 0 0 7 0 0
PETITIONER / 4% 2%
OTHER PARTY
277 13 3 0 15 0 0
SALES
6% 8% 3%
LOANS / 21 2 1 20 3 0
PROPERTY IN 9% 5% 7% 5% 8%
278
SAFEKEEPING
SURETIES / 8 1 0 13 2 3
SECURITIES 4% 3% 3% 6% 14 %
279 11 0 0 17 0 3
INHERITANCES
5% 4% 14 %
MARRIAGE 4 0 0 17 1 0
CONTRACTS / 2% 4% 3%
280
DOWRIES
WORK 8 2 1 45 0 0
281 4% 5% 7% 10 %
AGREEMENTS
TAXES / RENT 8 4 0 49 0 0
282 4% 10 % 11 %
DUE TO STATE
STATE- 2 0 0 13 0 0
CONTROLLED 1% 3%
INDUSTRIES /
TRADES
CONTRIBUTIONS 2 0 0 3 0 0
/ SERVICES 1% 1%
283
ASSOCIATIONS
TEMPLE 1 0 0 1 0 0
ENDOWMENTS 0% 0%
275
nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 83-85; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 30-31.
276
periodo tolemaico’, p. 87-88; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 32-33.
277
periodo tolemaico’, p. 88-89; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 34-35.
278
nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 89; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 36-37.
279
280
periodo tolemaico’, p. 86-87; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 38.
281
282
Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 41.
283

PETITIONS PETITIONS
284 2 0 0 2 0 0
FORGERIES
1% 0%
RUNAWAY 0 0 1 2 0 0
SLAVES 7% 0%
OTHER DIRECTLY 2 0 0 1 3 0
PROPERTY- 1% 0% 8%
RELATED
OTHER NOT 6 0 0 7 2 1
DIRECTLY 3% 2% 6% 5%
PROPERTY-
RELATED
UNCERTAIN 41 7 0 54 9 4
18 % 18 % 12 % 24 % 19 %
Most of the above-listed topics have to do with property. Some topics (most
importantly violence, misconduct and negligence by the authorities and detention)
do not necessarily relate to property, but often appear in combination with
property-related complaints. KELLY has noticed a similar tendency in petitions from
Roman Egypt: “There are signs that there was a cultural preference towards using
the legal system mainly to deal with disputes with an economic element. The vast
majority of petitions and reports of proceedings deal, at least on their faces, with
disputes regarding damage to, or the ownership, transfer, or theft of property”. 285
Especially conspicuous is the general absence of sexual violence in petitions from
both Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. A couple of petitions from Graeco-Roman Egypt
concern violent acts against women that may have had a sexual dimension, but this
dimension is never made explicit.286 Possibly, there was a taboo on this issue and
people were reluctant to openly acknowledge such events in petitions.
Alternatively, these matters may simply not have been dealt with through recourse
to the state. Adultery also barely appears in petitions from Graeco-Roman Egypt.
Only two Ptolemaic petitions (P. Diosk. 6 l. 7-50 [TM 44722] and P. Köln Gr. XI 455
[TM 112490]) refer to adulterous relationships, and in both texts they seem to be
mentioned in order to contextualise the described events and discredit the accused,
rather than as the actual basis of the complaint.287 In temple oaths, adultery is a
rather common theme, however, showing that it was no taboo.288
284
285
KELLY, Petitions, Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt, p. 163. Most temple oaths concern property-related
disputes as well: cf. KAPLONY-HECKEL, Die demotischen Tempeleide, p. 27.
286
Cf. BRYEN, Violence in Roman Egypt, p. 119; KELLY, Petitions, Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt, p. 165 note
196; VEÏSSE, unpublished habilitation thesis.
287
Cf. ARMONI in P. Köln XI, p. 191; JÖRDENS, ‘Ehebruch und Sonstiges’, p. 248-252.
288
In KAPLONY-HECKEL’s compilation of Demotic temple oaths, 14 texts referring to adultery can be found: O.
Tempeleide 1 [TM 50081]; O. Tempeleide 2 [TM 50414]; O. Tempeleide 3 [TM 50415]; O. Tempeleide 4 [TM 50416];
O. Tempeleide 5 [TM 50417]; O. Tempeleide 6 [TM 50418]; O. Tempeleide 7 [TM 50419]; O. Tempeleide 8 [TM
The dispute-related petitions make various requests. The following table gives an
overview of the different categories of requests that appear in these texts:
DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-
ROYAL ἔντευξις RELATED NON- RELATED EARLY RELATED LATER FRAGMENTARY RELATED
PETITIONS ROYAL ὑπόμνημα ὑπόμνημα GREEK PETITIONS mḳmḳ
ἔντευξις PETITIONS PETITIONS PETITIONS
PETITIONS
TOTAL NUMBER 226 40 14 440 38 21
OF TEXTS
REQUESTS TO 92 5 1 162 6 6
SUMMON / SEND 289 13 % 7% 36 % 16 % 29 %
41 %
/ BRING
SOMEONE
BEFORE
AUTHORITY
REQUESTS FOR 36 7 1 45 10 3
EXAMINATION 16 % 18 % 7% 10 % 26 % 14 %
JUDGEMENT 10 % 3% 1% 3%
PUNISHMENT 11 % 16 % 3%
REQUESTS TO 68 3 3 86 8 2
MAKE OTHER 30 % 8% 21 % 20 % 21 % 10 %
PARTY HAND
OVER PROPERTY
MAKE OTHER 12 % 7% 3% 10 %
PARTY ABANDON
CLAIM / STOP
HARASSMENT
MAKE OTHER 4% 3% 3% 5%
PARTY DO
JUSTICE
REQUESTS 4 1 0 13 0 2
CONCERNING 2% 3% 3% 10 %
SEIZURE /
BLOCKING OF
PROPERTY
RELEASE FROM 0% 20 % 36 % 3% 13 %
DETENTION
RELEASE OF 0% 5%
MORTGAGE
RELEASE FROM 3% 0%
LITURGICAL
OBLIGATIONS
50420]; O. Tempeleide 9 [TM 50421]; O. Tempeleide 10 [TM 50422]; O. Tempeleide 11 [TM 50086]; O. Tempeleide
12 [TM 50424]; O. Tempeleide 13 [TM 50425]; O. Tempeleide 14 [TM 50426].
289
Many texts contain more than one type of request, so the percentages should not be added up.
DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-

ROYAL ἔντευξις RELATED NON- RELATED EARLY RELATED LATER FRAGMENTARY RELATED
PETITIONS ROYAL ὑπόμνημα ὑπόμνημα GREEK PETITIONS mḳmḳ
ἔντευξις PETITIONS PETITIONS PETITIONS
PETITIONS
INITIATE 4% 1% 3%
PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE
CHREMATISTAI
GENERAL 4 3 1 33 0 0
REQUESTS FOR 2% 8% 7% 8%
SUPPORT
OTHER 20 5 1 69 0 2
REQUESTS 9% 13 % 7% 16 % 10 %
ATTESTED IN
ONLY ONE
PETITION TYPE
A couple of important groups of requests are only attested in later ὑπομνήματα:

requests to forward (ὑποτάσσω / προσυποτάσσω) (a copy of) the submitted petition
to other authorities (19 texts), to secure (ἀσφαλίζομαι, συνέχω) the accused (18
texts), to treat (διεξάγω - διεξαγωγή) the petitioners’ case (11 texts), to enter the
petition in the official records (κατατάσσω / καταχωρίζω ἐν χρηματισμῶι; ἵνʼ
ὑπάρχηι ἐν χρηματισμῶι; 9 texts), to add a subscription to the petition (περὶ
ἑκάστων ὑπογραφὴν ποιέω; 8 texts) and to search (ἀναζητέω, ἐκζητέω, ἐπιζητέω)
the culprits (8 texts).
Five categories of requests deserve some further attention: (1) requests to summon,
send or bring someone before an authority, (2) requests for examination, (3)
requests for judgement, (4) requests for punishment, and (5) requests to make the
other party abandon a claim or stop some harassment. The requests to initiate
proceedings before the chrematistai are examined in further detail in chapter VI (p.
228-231).
272 dispute-related petitions ask to summon, send or bring someone (mostly the
other party) before an authority. This action is referred to with the following
verbs:290
DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE- DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-
RELATED RELATED NON- RELATED EARLY RELATED LATER FRAGMENTARY RELATED
ROYAL ROYAL ὑπόμνημα ὑπόμνημα GREEK PETITIONS mḳmḳ
ἔντευξις ἔντευξις PETITIONS PETITIONS PETITIONS
PETITIONS PETITIONS
TOTAL NUMBER OF 226 40 14 440 38 21
TEXTS 291 (n = 6) (n = 1) (n = 162) (n = 6) (n = 6)
(n = 92)
290
Cf. BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht, p. 78-81; SEMEKA, Ptolemäisches
Prozessrecht, p. 247-248.

PETITIONS PETITIONS
ἀνακαλέομαι 18 1 0 29 3 0
(TO SUMMON) 20 % 17 % 18 % 50 %
προσκαλέομαι 2 0 0 12 0 0
(TO SUMMON) 2% 7%
εἰσκαλέομαι 0 1 0 1 0 0
(TO SUMMON) 17 % 1%
μεταπέμπομαι 6 1 0 21 1 0
(TO SUMMON) 7% 17 % 13 % 17 %
παραγγέλλω 0 0 0 2 0 0
(TO SUMMON) 1%
ἀποστέλλω 60 1 1 10 1 0
(TO SEND) 65 % 17 % 100 % 6% 17 %
ἐξαποστέλλω 2 0 0 24 0 0
(TO SEND) 2% 15 %
καταστέλλω 0 0 0 1 0 0
(TO SEND) 1%
ἀναπέμπω 0 0 0 2 0 0
(TO SEND) 1%
ἐκπέμπω 0 0 0 2 0 0
(TO SEND) 1%
συμπέμπω 0 0 0 1 0 0
(TO SEND) 1%
καθίστημι 2 0 0 43 1 0
(TO BRING) 2% 27 % 17 %
ἀποκαθίστημι 1 1 0 5 0 0
(TO BRING) 1% 17 % 3%
ἄγω (TO BRING) 0 0 0 1 0 0
1%
ἀνάγω 1 0 0 6 0 0
(TO BRING) 1% 4%
εἰσάγω 0 1 0 0 0 0
(TO BRING) 17 %
ỉn (TO BRING) 0 0 0 0 0 6
100 %
fragmentary 3 0 0 4 0
expressions 3% 2%
Some chronological variation can be observed in the use of these verbs: the requests
with προσκαλέομαι, ἐξαποστέλλω and καθίστημι only appear from the 2nd century
BC onwards. Probably the choice of words mainly depended on the scribe (or scribal
office), though. The predominance of requests with ἀποστέλλω in royal ἐντεύξεις,
for example, is largely due to the archives of the petitions from Magdola and of
Glaukos the policeman of Mouchis, in which 53 of the 72 texts with this request can
be found; all of these petitions were submitted to the strategos of the Arsinoite
291
preserved a request of this category. Some texts contain more than one type of these requests, so the
percentages should not be added up.
nome, and were, presumably, written in the same scribal offices, therefore using the
same formulas.
102 dispute-related petitions ask to examine the case or the parties involved. This
examination is referred to with the following terms and expressions:
PETITIONS PETITIONS
TOTAL NUMBER OF 226 40 14 440 38 21
TEXTS 292 (n = 7) (n = 1) (n = 45) (n = 10) (n = 3)
(n = 36)
ἐπισκέπτομαι - 25 6 1 33 9 0
ἐπίσκεψις 69 % 86 % 100 % 73 % 90 %
(TO INVESTIGATE -
INVESTIGATION)
ἐξετάζω - 2 0 0 1 0 0
ἐξέτασις 6% 2%
(TO EXAMINE -
293
EXAMINATION)
šn (TO EXAMINE) 0 0 0 0 0 1
33 %
διακούω 7 0 0 3 1 0
294 19 % 7% 10 %
(TO HEAR)
εἰσακούω 0 1 0 0 0 0
(TO HEAR) 14 %
sḏm ḫrw=y ỉrm 0 0 0 0 0 2
(TO HEAR MY PLEA 67 %
TOGETHER WITH
295
[OTHER PARTY])
ἐπέρχομαι (TO 1 0 0 5 0 0
COME FOR ON-SITE 3% 11 %
296
EXAMINATION)
ἐπερωτάω 1 0 0 3 0 0
297 3% 7%
(TO QUESTION)
Most requests for examination are formulated with the terms ἐπισκέπτομαι -
ἐπίσκεψις. Several scholars have argued that the ἐπίσκεψις cannot be
unambiguously distinguished from the κρίσις (“judgement”: see below) and that the
terms ἐπισκέπτομαι - ἐπίσκεψις can also be used in the sense of “to judge” -
292
preserved a request of this category.
293
Cf. HELLEBRAND, Das prozesszeugnis im Rechte der gräko-ägyptischen Papyri, p. 100 note 331, p. 105 note 351.
294
Cf. HELLEBRAND, Das prozesszeugnis im Rechte der gräko-ägyptischen Papyri, p. 111; SCHERER in P. Coll. Youtie I, p. 86.
295
Cf. BAETENS, ‘Some Corrections to Ptolemaic Petitions’, p. 284.
296
Cf. HELLEBRAND, Das prozesszeugnis im Rechte der gräko-ägyptischen Papyri, p. 105-106.
297
Cf. HELLEBRAND, Das prozesszeugnis im Rechte der gräko-ägyptischen Papyri, p. 110.
“judgement”.298 HELLEBRAND and RÖSCH refer to P. Enteux. 3 [TM 3281] in this context,
a royal ἔντευξις asking the strategos to let the village epistates investigate
(ἐπισκέπτομαι) the petitioner’s case and, if the petitioner’s allegations turn out to be
true, to have the accused sent to the strategos for judgement (κρίσις). The strategos
added a subscription to the epistates to this petition, ordering him to reconcile the
two parties or, if that would fail, to send them to him so that he can investigate the
case (ἐπισκέπτομαι). So in the subscription, the strategos says that he may have to
investigate the case (ἐπίσκεψις), whereas in the body of the petition he is asked to
judge the case (κρίσις): does that mean that the ἐπίσκεψις and κρίσις actually denote
the same procedure? Another so-called piece of evidence cited by HELLEBRAND is P.
Enteux. 96 [TM 3376], a fragmentary royal ἔντευξις of which the request is lost but
to which the strategos added a concise subscription addressed to the laokritai court:
τ[ο]ῖς λαοκρίταις. ἐπ(ισκέψασθε). HELLEBRAND argues that the strategos could hardly
have expected that the laokritai would investigate the case without pronouncing a
judgement, and hence concludes “daß ἐπισκέπτεσθαι auch das Urteilen - und zwar
hier des Gerichtshofes - in sich begreifen kann”. All other examples cited by the
above-mentioned authors are of a similar nature, but the line of reasoning is hardly
convincing: these texts only show that references to an ἐπίσκεψις could implicitly
also hint at a judgement. The other way around, the terms κρίνω - κρίσις (and
derivatives: cf. below) seem to have been used in a rather broad way as well, not
only referring to the verdict itself but also to the process leading to that verdict, in a
similar way as the English terms “to judge” and “judgement”. All this does not
imply, however, that ἐπισκέπτομαι - ἐπίσκεψις and κρίνω - κρίσις meant the same
thing or were confused with each other. This only shows that the two procedures
were closely related, which seems only natural.
29 dispute-related petitions ask for a judgement, expressed by the terms κρίνω -

κρίσις (13 texts), διακρίνω (15 texts) and συνκρίνω (2 text), which seem to be
largely interchangeable.
Some of these petitions ask for a judgement by the chrematistai court; others ask
for a judgement by state officials, most commonly the strategos.299 The nature of
these judgements by officials, also attested in some other sources, is debated.
298
GUÉRAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. lxxiv; HELLEBRAND, Das prozesszeugnis im Rechte der gräko-ägyptischen Papyri, p. 102-104,
132; RÖSCH, Die frühptolemäischen Rechtsschutzbitten, p. 61-63; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 151
note 106.
299
Judgement by chrematistai: P. Cairo Zen. IV 59619 [TM 1251] (see chapter VI, p. 228 note 401); P. Fay. 11 [TM
8084]; P. Fay. 12 [TM 8334]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138]; P. Tebt. III 783 [TM 7853]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor.
Choach. 8 b [TM 3638]. Judgement by officials: P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Enteux. 3 [TM 3281]; P. Enteux. 10 [TM
Enteux. 100 [TM 3372]; P. Köln Gr. XIII 521 [TM 219337]; P. Tebt. III 772 [TM 5364]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 [TM 3561];
PSI IV 419 [TM 2102].
Traditionally, it has been held that certain Ptolemaic officials could assume the role
of judge and decide disputes in a similar way as the Ptolemaic courts.300 In this
context, a judgement pronounced by an official is viewed as a formal judicial ruling,
aiming to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties involved. This
traditional view was famously contested by WOLFF, however, whose formal
distinction between the judicial activities of the courts and those of officials, the so-
called Beamtenjustiz, is still authoritative today: “Anders als von einem Gericht,
erwartete man von dem Beamten nicht eine Rechtsfeststellung, auf Grund deren
man vollstrecken (...) konnte. Mann erhoffte sich von ihm vielmehr direkte Hilfe in
Gestalt unmittelbar wirksamer Schritte. Demgemäß bat man in den Eingaben nicht
so sehr um ein Urteil wie um exekutives Vorgehen (...)”.301 Proceedings before
officials appear to have had certain advantages over proceedings before courts,
which can account for their popularity: in general, the Beamtenjustiz appears to have
been a more flexible, more easily accessible, more immediately enforceable and less
costly mechanism for dealing with disputes than the court system. 302 But in certain
instances, it may have been more interesting to take recourse to a court after all:
the effectiveness of Beamtenjustiz was largely dependent on the good will of the
officials in question and its outcome did not have the same legal force as formal
rulings by a court.303 In general, Ptolemaic petitions ask state officials for direct
action, as is expected on the basis of the hypothesis of WOLFF, but how do
judgements by state officials fit in this context? According to WOLFF, these
judgements should not be viewed as formal judicial rulings, like the judgements of
courts, but should be understood in a more general, non-technical sense. State
officials only proceeded to judgements (and preparatory examinations: see above)
in order to decide on the preferable course of action; this concrete and direct action
is always the primary end of the Beamtenjustiz, and also of requests to officials for
judgement (and examination).304
94 dispute-related petitions ask to punish the accused. This punishment is referred

to in the following ways: 305
300
See references in WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 113-114.
301
Citation from WOLFF, ‘Organisation der Rechtspflege und Rechtskontrolle’, p. 19-20. For WOLFF’s view on the
Ptolemaic Beamtenjustiz, see WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 113-193; WOLFF, ‘Organisation der
Rechtspflege und Rechtskontrolle’, p. 18-22. Cf. also RÖSCH (Die frühptolemäischen Rechtsschutzbitten), who applies
WOLFF’s ideas about the Ptolemaic Beamtenjustiz on a corpus of royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the strategos.
302
Cf. RÖSCH, Die frühptolemäischen Rechtsschutzbitten, p. 85-86; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p.
152-155, 183-185.
303
Cf. RÖSCH, Die frühptolemäischen Rechtsschutzbitten, p. 71; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p.
185.
304
See WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 127-134, 150-160. Cf. also RÖSCH, Die frühptolemäischen
Rechtsschutzbitten, p. 13-14, 17-19.
305
Cf. CAVASSINI, ‘Exemplum vocis ἐντεύξεις’, p. 320; DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, p.
131-133; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 90-92; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p.
41-43; GUÉRAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. lxxxii; RUPPRECHT, ‘Straftaten und Rechtsschutz’; HELMIS, Crime et châtiment dans
DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-RELATED

ROYAL ἔντευξις LATER ὑπόμνημα FRAGMENTARY GREEK
PETITIONS PETITIONS PETITIONS
TOTAL NUMBER OF TEXTS 226 440 38
306 (n = 69) (n = 1)
(n = 23)
διαλαμβάνω περί / ὑπέρ - διάληψις (TO TAKE A 1 26 0
DECISION ABOUT [ACCUSED OR OFFENSE] - DECISION) 4% 38 %
διαγιγνώσκω περί (TO TAKE A DECISION ABOUT 8 0 0
[ACCUSED OR OFFENSE]) 35 %
καταγιγνώσκω (TO CONDEMN) 1 0 0
4%
χράομαι (TO DEAL WITH [ACCUSED]) 1 1 0
4% 1%
ἐπιπλήσσω - ἐπίπληξις (TO PUNISH - 0 18 0
PUNISHMENT)307 26 %
τιμωρία (PUNISHMENT) 3 0 0
13 %
ζημία (PUNISHMENT) 2 0 0
9%
εὔθυνα (PUNISHMENT) 0 2 0
3%
ἐπιστροφή (CORRECTION) 1 0 0
4%
κόλασις (PUNISHMENT) 0 1 0
1%
REQUESTS TO EXACT (πράσσω) A FINE 8 2 0
35 % 3%
REQUESTS TO LET ACCUSED RECEIVE WHAT IS FITTING 1 11 0
(τυγχάνω ὧν προσήκει / τῶν προσηκόντων 4% 16 %
/ ἁρμοζόντως)
REQUESTS TO LET ACCUSED RECEIVE WHAT IS 0 2 0
NECESSARY (τυγχάνω ὧν δεῖ τυχεῖν) 3%
REQUESTS TO LET ACCUSED RECEIVE THE 0 2 0
CONSEQUENCES (τυγχάνω τῶν 3%
ἐξακολουθούντων)
REQUESTS TO LET ACCUSED RECEIVE WHAT THEY 1 0 1
DESERVE (τυγχάνω τῆς ἀξίας (?) / ὧν ἄξιοί 4% 100 %
εἰσιν)
REQUESTS TO LET ACCUSED RECEIVE THE FITTING 0 1 0
HATRED OF EVIL (τυγχάνω τῆς προσηκούσης 1%
308
μισοπονηρίας)
REQUESTS NOT TO LET ACCUSED ESCAPE UNPUNISHED 0 4 0
(διαφεύγω ἀθῶιος) 6%
l'Égypte ptolémaïque, p. 121-126, 201-203; SEMEKA, Ptolemäisches Prozessrecht, p. 72-75. For the lack of specificity of
Ptolemaic requests for punishment, see BAGNALL, ‘Reponse to Hans-Albert Rupprecht’, p. 152; RUPPRECHT,
‘Straftaten und Rechtsschutz’, p. 147.
306
preserved a request of this category. Some texts contain more than one type of these requests, so the
307
According to HELMIS (Crime et châtiment dans l'Égypte ptolémaïque, p. 201-203), ἐπιπλήσσω and ἐπίπληξις refer to
caning, but he bases his argument on two Roman papyri. It seems more straightforward to interpret ἐπιπλήσσω
and ἐπίπληξις in Ptolemaic petitions as general terms for punishment, like other words in this context. Cf. also
HUE-ARCE, La violence interpersonelle en Égypte au Nouvel Empire et à l’époque gréco-romaine, p. 168.
308
For the concept of μισοπονηρία, in requests for punishment and elsewhere, see VEÏSSE, ‘Toi qui détestes les
méchants’.
At first glance, this overview appears to suggest that royal ἐντεύξεις and later
ὑπομνήματα generally formulate their requests for punishment in a different way,
but in fact the chronology seems to be a more important factor than the type of
petition. Certain expressions only appear in petitions from the 3rd century BC:
requests with διαγιγνώσκω περί, καταγιγνώσκω, χράομαι, τιμωρία, ζημία and
ἐπιστροφή.309 Others only appear in petitions from the 2nd - 1st centuries BC: requests
with διαλαμβάνω περί / ὑπέρ - διάληψις, ἐπιπλήσσω - ἐπίπληξις, εὔθυνα and
κόλασις, requests to let the accused receive what is fitting, receive what is
necessary, receive the consequences and receive the fitting hatred of evil, and
requests not to let the accused escape unpunished. This chronological divide is
projected onto the royal ἐντεύξεις on the one hand and the later ὑπομνήματα on
the other hand, since most royal ἐντεύξεις with requests for punishment date from
the 3rd century BC and most later ὑπομνήματα with requests for punishment from
the 2nd - 1st centuries BC.
59 petitions ask to make the other party abandon a claim or stop some harassment.
These requests can be further divided in the following subgroups:
DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-
ROYAL ἔντευξις LATER ὑπόμνημα FRAGMENTARY GREEK RELATED
PETITIONS PETITIONS PETITIONS mḳmḳ
PETITIONS
TOTAL NUMBER OF TEXTS 226 440 38 21
310 (n = 29) (n = 1) (n = 2)
(n = 27)
REQUESTS TO FORBID THE OTHER PARTY 12 14 0 0
FROM BOTHERING (παρενοχλέω, 44 % 48 %
περισπάω) THE PETITIONER
FROM EXACTING PAYMENTS (πράσσω) 24 %
FROM THE PETITIONER
FROM EXTORTING (διασείω) THE 15 %
PETITIONER
FROM LAYING HANDS (ἐπιβάλλω τὰς 15 % 7%
χεῖρας) ON THE PETITIONER OR SOME
PROPERTY311
309
One petition to the strategos from 48 - 51 AD also contains a request for punishment with τιμωρία, however:
P. Mich. V 231 [TM 12072]. Some of the listed expressions are so rare that one cannot safely conclude that they
were only used during a particular period.
310
preserved a request of this category. Many texts contain more than one type of these requests, so the
311
Cf. WILCKEN in UPZ I, p. 461.
DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-RELATED DISPUTE-

ROYAL ἔντευξις LATER ὑπόμνημα FRAGMENTARY GREEK RELATED
PETITIONS PETITIONS PETITIONS mḳmḳ
PETITIONS
FROM TRESPASSING (εἰσβιάζομαι, 37 % 7% 100 % 50 %
ἐπιβαίνω, προσπορεύομαι, hn) ON
SOME PROPERTY312
FROM BUILDING (οἰκοδομέω) ON SOME 11 %
LAND
FROM HINDERING THE PETITIONER’S 4%
BUILDING ACTIVITIES (οἰκοδομέω)
OTHER EXPRESSIONS 9 8 0 1
33 % 28 % 50 %
2.2. Non-dispute-related petitions
Some documents address requests to the authorities that are not dispute-related
and yet in some way out of the ordinary or presented as such. These petitions relate
to various matters, but a couple of larger groups can be discerned: petitions for the
right of asylia (nine royal ἐντεύξεις), petitions for official registration of transfers of
land (six later ὑπομνήματα), petitions for authorisation to replace dilapidated
constructions (three royal ἐντεύξεις) and petitions concerning transfers of tax
leases (two later ὑπομνήματα).
2.3. Texts without petitioning function
Several non-royal ἐντεύξεις, early ὑπομνήματα, later ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ serve
other purposes than petitioning. Most of these documents are messages to the
authorities, just like petitions, but there are a couple of rare exceptions: early
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ addressed to private persons and early ὑπομνήματα
intended for personal use. Many, but not all documents without petitioning
function contain requests. In the non-royal ἐντεύξεις and early ὑπομνήματα,
reports and requests concerning various matters, mostly daily business concerns,
are often combined in a single text; in this respect they remind of letters. The later
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ, on the other hand, generally focus on a single subject. The
later ὑπόμνημα was clearly used for a couple of fixed purposes, like declarations of
312
Cf. TAUBENSCHLAG, ‘The Inviolability of Domicile in Greco-Roman Egypt’.
property (29 out of 74 texts without petitioning function; 39 %), offers for
immovables and concessions auctioned by the state (11 out of 74 texts; 15 %) and
notifications of crime without requests (4 out of 74 texts; 5 %). In the early 3rd
century BC, declarations of property and notifications of crime were still composed
in other formats (cf. p. 136-139, 199-200), but from the late 3rd century BC onwards,
the ὑπόμνημα became the standard format for these documents. 313 During the
Roman period, the ὑπόμνημα gained even more fixed purposes: e.g. census
declarations, declarations of birth, declarations of death, (contractual) offers for
leases, liturgy nominations, etcetera.314
313
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 181.
314
Cf. also QUENOUILLE, ‘Hypomnema und seine verschiedenen Bedeutungen’, p. 678-681. She does not view the
lease offers as real ὑπομνήματα, because they are usually designated as ἀναφόριον or μίσθωσις in the sources,
but the more formal approach to ὑπομνήματα adopted in this study allows to classify these texts as ἀναφόριον
or μίσθωσις on the basis of their content and ὑπόμνημα on the basis of their form.
Chapter VI: capita selecta
1. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE ὑπόμνημα AND THE

Several petitions from the 2nd century BC are designated as προσάγγελμα by their
authors or by the officials who processed these texts. This phenomenon has led
scholars to identify the προσάγγελμα as a third major type of Greek Ptolemaic
petitions, besides the ἔντευξις and the ὑπόμνημα.315 In this section, it will be argued
that these προσαγγέλματα can at the same time be classified as ὑπομνήματα on the
basis of their form, making it unnecessary to include the προσάγγελμα as a separate
petition format in this study. Several steps will be taken in order to develop this
argument: first, the internal evolution of the προσάγγελμα and the differences
between 3rd century BC προσαγγέλματα and later προσαγγέλματα will be discussed;
second, the problematic distinction between the later προσαγγέλματα and
ὑπομνήματα will be introduced by means of an example; third, an overview of
previous discussions of the later προσαγγέλματα will be given; fourth, the
documents will be subjected to a new examination in order to reconsider their
nature.
1.1. Early προσαγγέλματα versus later προσαγγέλματα
The word προσάγγελμα is derived from the verb προσαγγέλλω, the basic meanings
of which are “to report”, “to declare” or “to denounce”. 316 In some texts, the
synonym προσαγγελία is used instead of προσάγγελμα, but without any
differentiation. 317 Originally, the προσάγγελμα constituted an autonomous text
315
See for example BAUSCHATZ, Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, p. 176-177; CAVASSINI, ‘Exemplum vocis
ἐντεύξεις’, p. 299-300; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 54-56; HENGSTL, ‘Petita in
Petitionen gräko-ägyptischer Papyri’, p. 270-271.
316
HOMBERT & PREAUX, ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’, p. 259; PREISIGKE & KIESSLING,
Wörterbuch II, p. 385.
317
SEMEKA (Ptolemäisches Prozessrecht, p. 277) tried to make a distinction between the words προσαγγελία and
προσάγγελμα, but several papyri that appeared after the publication of his work proved him to be wrong: cf.
HOMBERT & PRÉAUX, ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’, p. 260. See also GONIS, ‘A new 2nd
century B.C. prosangelma’, p. 233. In contrast to the word προσάγγελμα, προσαγγελία appears to have fallen into
198 CHAPTER VI: CAPITA SELECTA
format, easily distinguishable from other formats like the ὑπόμνημα. At about the
turn of the 3rd/2nd century BC, however, this early type of προσαγγέλματα
disappeared and texts composed in various other formats started to get designated
as προσάγγελμα, most importantly documents in a format similar to that of the later
ὑπόμνημα. The latest examples of documents in the early προσάγγελμα format are
SB XVI 12823 [TM 4176] (215 BC), P. Gurob 8 l. 6-14 [TM 5871] (210 BC), P. Petrie III 34
a [TM 7429] (210 - 183 BC), P. Tebt. III 795 [TM 7855] (ca. 200 - 175 BC) and SB XVI
12813 [TM 4174] (ca. 200 - 175 BC).318 The earliest documents in other formats that
are designated as προσάγγελμα in the sources appear in P. Tebt. III 793 [TM 5379], a
long register of official correspondence from 183 BC. Consequently, the above-
described evolution from the early to the later προσάγγελμα appears to have taken
place around the period 210 - 183 BC.319
In total, 26 early προσαγγέλματα are preserved: P. Cairo Zen. II 59167 [TM 814]; P. Cairo Zen. IV
59659 + P. Col. Zen. II 92 [TM 1290]; P. Col. Zen. I 53 [TM 1769]; P. Frankf. 3 l. 13-29 [TM 5098]; P. Gurob 8 l. 6-14
[TM 5871]; P. Hibeh I 36 [TM 8188]; P. Hibeh I 37 [TM 7818]; P. Hibeh I 144 [TM 8261]; P. Lille Gr. I 6 [TM 3213]; P.
Lond. VII 1980 [TM 1543]; P. Lond. VII 1981 [TM 2502]; P. Mich. Zen. 34 [TM 1934]; P. Mich. Zen. 52 [TM 1952]; P.
Petrie III 34 a [TM 7429]; P. Petrie III 72 c l. 5-7 [TM 7527]; P. Sorb. III 99 [TM 118710]; P. Sorb. III 133 [TM 121877];
P. Tebt. III 794 [TM 5380]; P. Tebt. III 795 [TM 7855]; P. Zen. Pestm. 45 [TM 1876]; PSI IV 393 [TM 2077]; PSI IV 396
[TM 2080]; SB XVI 12813 [TM 4174]; SB XVI 12823 [TM 4176]; SB XVIII 13160 [TM 2529]; SB XXII 15803 b [TM
2276].
Early προσαγγέλματα can be recognized by their distinctive prescripts, which fall

into two types. 320 The prescripts of the first type actually contain the word
προσάγγελμα, followed by the identification of the addressee (in the dative) and the
submitter (expressed by παρά + genitive), in various order (in 12 texts προσάγγελμα
disuse after the 2nd century BC, however. In BGU II 379 [TM 9142] (67 AD), προσα(γγελίαν) was read, but this
abbreviation might just as well be read as προσά(γγελμα).
318
The dates of the two last documents are very uncertain, however: the editors of these texts do not really
motivate their choice of date; presumably, they are mainly based on palaeographical considerations.
319
HOMBERT & PRÉAUX (‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l'époque ptolémaïque’, p. 260) wanted to date this
evolution to around 217 BC, because they wanted to synchronise it with certain changes related to the ἔντευξις
and ὑπόμνημα format that took place at about the same time: around 217 - 202 BC, the practice of submitting
royal ἐντεύξεις to the strategos was abandoned and the ὑπόμνημα became the standard format for petitions to
the strategos (see below, p. 225-227), and around 218 - 163 BC, the form of the royal ἔντευξις underwent certain
changes (see chapter I, p. 39-42). The chronological framework of these other changes is neither precise nor
secure, however, and there are no other indications that the evolution of the προσάγγελμα would have been
linked to that of the ἔντευξις and ὑπόμνημα. Moreover, five texts that use the early προσάγγελμα prescript post-
date 217 BC: P. Gurob 8 l. 6-14 [TM 5871] (210 BC), P. Petrie III 34 a [TM 7429] (210 - 183 BC), P. Tebt. III 795 [TM
7855] (ca. 200 - 175 BC), SB XVI 12813 [TM 4174] (ca. 200 - 175 BC) and SB XVI 12823 [TM 4176] (215 BC). SB XVI
12813 [TM 4174] and SB XVI 12823 [TM 4176] were still unpublished when HOMBERT & PRÉAUX wrote their article,
and P. Petrie III 34 a [TM 7429] was still roughly dated to the 3rd century BC. P. Gurob 8 l. 6-14 [TM 5871] and P.
Tebt. III 795 [TM 7855] were exceptionally classified as later προσαγγέλματα by HOMBERT & PRÉAUX (‘Recherches
sur le prosangelma à l'époque ptolémaïque’, p. 260, p. 266 note 3, p. 267 note 2), but this would constitute an
unnecessary complication. All in all, it seems much more straightforward to situate the break between the early
and the later προσαγγέλματα around the period 210 - 183 BC.
320
One document with lost prescript is also listed as early προσάγγελμα above: P. Frankf. 3 l. 13-29 [TM 5098]. P.
Frankf. 3 [TM 5098] is a collection of various texts from 212 BC (so presumably predating the evolution of the
early to the later προσάγγελμα), of which l. 13-29 seem to contain an excerpt from a προσάγγελμα. The
identification of this text as προσάγγελμα is not certain, however: cf. HOMBERT & PREAUX, ‘Recherches sur le
prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’, p. 276 note 7.
CHAPTER VI: CAPITA SELECTA 199
τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος and in 4 texts προσάγγελμα παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος τῶι δεῖνι). In
a few exceptional texts, only the addressee (προσάγγελμα τῶι δεῖνι: 3 texts) or
submitter (προσάγγελμα παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος: 1 text) is identified. The prescripts of the
second, less frequently attested type are constructed with the verb προσαγγέλλει,
again followed by the identification of the addressee (in the dative) and the
submitter (in the nominative), in various order (in 3 texts προσαγγέλλει τῶι δεῖνι ὁ
δεῖνα and in 2 texts προσαγγέλλει ὁ δεῖνα τῶι δεῖνι). Both types of prescript are
regularly preceded by the date.
The largest and best-known group of these early προσαγγέλματα consists of

compact notifications of crime and loss addressed to the police and
komogrammateus (17 out of 26 texts).321 In contrast to petitions, these προσάγγελμα
notifications only inform the authorities of incidents; they never make a request.322
Usually, they contain precise information about the object of the crime or loss in
question and about the moment when the event took place. Several of these texts
are formatted as double documents: by copying (part of) the προσάγγελμα in a
sealed scriptura interior, sensitive information related to the crime or loss in question
321
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59659 + P. Col. Zen. II 92 [TM 1290]; P. Frankf. 3 l. 13-29 [TM 5098]; P. Gurob 8 l. 6-14 [TM 5871];
P. Hibeh I 36 [TM 8188]; P. Hibeh I 37 [TM 7818]; P. Hibeh I 144 [TM 8261]; P. Lille Gr. I 6 [TM 3213]; P. Mich. Zen.
34 [TM 1934]; P. Petrie III 34 a [TM 7429]; P. Petrie III 72 c l. 5-7 [TM 7527]; P. Sorb. III 133 [TM 121877]; P. Tebt. III
794 [TM 5380]; P. Tebt. III 795 [TM 7855]; PSI IV 393 [TM 2077]; PSI IV 396 [TM 2080]; SB XVI 12823 [TM 4176]; SB
XVIII 13160 [TM 2529]. For this type of προσαγγέλματα, see in particular HOMBERT & PREAUX, ‘Recherches sur le
prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’, p. 260-265. HOMBERT & PRÉAUX only wanted to include προσαγγέλματα
addressed to the police in this category and therefore left out P. Gurob 8 l. 6-14 [TM 5871] and P. Petrie III 34 a
[TM 7429] from this group (cf. ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l'époque ptolémaïque’, p. 260, 264), but there
are no clear reasons for this. SCHAEFER (in P. Köln V, p. 108-111) and PAPATHOMAS (in P. Heid. Gr. VII, p. 49) also
wanted to assign P. Heid. Gr. VII 394 [TM 78357] (214 BC), P. Köln V 216 [TM 2482] (209 BC) and SB VI 9068 [TM
6195] (ca. 225 - 200 BC), three communications to the archiphylakites of Moithymis, to this category of texts, but
in fact these three documents are very different from other early προσάγγελμα notifications. Most importantly,
they are introduced by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος instead of a prescript with the word
προσάγγελμα or προσαγγέλλει. SCHAEFER suggests that this formal variation might be a peculiarity of the early
προσαγγέλματα from the Memphites, but this solution seems far-fetched. In other respects, these texts do not
conform to the model of the early προσάγγελμα notifications either. P. Köln V 216 [TM 2482] is clearly a petition,
with an explicit request. P. Heid. Gr. VII 394 [TM 78357] is an addition to an earlier notification about illegal
grazing, informing the police about the identity of the culprits. The function of SB VI 9068 [TM 6195] (ca. 225 -
200 BC) cannot be adequately assessed, since the last lines of this communication are missing. All in all, there is
little reason to separate these documents from the other texts with the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος as
exceptional examples of early προσαγγέλματα.
322
HOMBERT & PRÉAUX (‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l'époque ptolémaïque’, p. 261-265) argue that these early
προσάγγελμα notifications were used to initiate preliminary investigations and constatations, after which real
proceedings could be requested through petitions. But three early προσάγγελμα notifications already refer to
earlier investigations and constatations by the authorities, so were clearly not used to initiate such actions: P.
Frankf. 3 l. 13-29 [TM 5098]; PSI IV 393 [TM 2077]; SB XVIII 13160 [TM 2529]. It seems more probable that these
documents were mainly used as simple notifications: by submitting a προσάγγελμα to the authorities, a victim of
a crime or loss could secure information about this event at an early stage, and the προσάγγελμα could serve as
evidence in possible future proceedings. The objective and precise character of these communications and the
fact that several of them are formatted as double documents support this idea. Moreover, certain later
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ appear to have served a similar function: see p. 125-126, 138-139, 167.
could be secured.323 The remaining early προσαγγέλματα (9 out of 26 texts) are

documents of various other nature.324 Most of them are reports without requests,
connected to daily business concerns. One of them, preserved in two versions (P.
Lond. VII 1980 [TM 1543] = P. Lond. VII 1981 [TM 2502]), is a petition, addressed to
the komogrammateus. This is the only petition composed in the early προσάγγελμα
format, however: clearly, this was no common format to write petitions.
Interestingly, the above-described early προσάγγελμα notifications of crime and
loss use both types of prescripts (with προσάγγελμα and with προσαγγέλλει),
whereas the other early προσαγγέλματα of various nature only use prescripts with
the word προσάγγελμα.
At about 210 - 183 BC, this original προσάγγελμα format disappeared and texts
composed in various other formats started to get designated as προσαγγέλματα by
their authors or by the officials who processed them. These texts fall into two
groups. The largest group (23 texts) consists of dispute-related documents
composed in a similar format as the contemporaneous “later ὑπόμνημα”. Certain
characteristics of these documents remind of the early προσάγγελμα notifications
discussed above: they all appear to concern criminal acts, and most of them are
addressed to the komogrammateus or police. Still, these later προσαγγέλματα are
fundamentally different: most of them are petitions, with requests; also in other
respects, they are generally far less compact than the early προσάγγελμα
notifications. The second group of later προσαγγέλματα consists of administrative
reports related to agriculture, composed in various other formats. Three examples
of this type of documents have been preserved: P. Tebt. I 71 [TM 3662] (ca. 114 BC),
P. Tebt. I 78 [TM 3714] (111 - 107 BC) and P. Tebt. III 936 l. 6-9 [TM 5461] (ca. 155
BC).325 Many authors forget about this second group of later προσαγγέλματα.326
There are several indications for a link between the Greek προσάγγελμα and the
Demotic ʿn-smy.327 First, the word ʿn-smy, which can be used both as a substantive
and as a verb, has a similar meaning as Greek προσάγγελμα / προσαγγέλλω: “(to)
report” or “(to) declare”. Second, ʿn-smy appears just below the word mḳmḳ in
the unpublished account P. Heid. Dem. 695 ined. [TM 454], which might suggest that
the ʿn-smy and mḳmḳ were closely connected types of documents, just like the
323
P. Hibeh I 36 [TM 8188]; P. Hibeh I 37 [TM 7818]; P. Lille Gr. I 6 [TM 3213]; P. Mich. Zen. 34 [TM 1934]; P. Sorb.
III 133 [TM 121877]; PSI IV 393 [TM 2077]; PSI IV 396 [TM 2080]; SB XVIII 13160 [TM 2529]. Cf. BAETENS, ‘Some
Corrections to Ptolemaic Petitions’, p. 290-291.
324
P. Cairo Zen. II 59167 [TM 814]; P. Col. Zen. I 53 [TM 1769]; P. Lond. VII 1980 [TM 1543]; P. Lond. VII 1981 [TM
2502]; P. Mich. Zen. 52 [TM 1952]; P. Sorb. III 99 [TM 118710]; P. Zen. Pestm. 45 [TM 1876]; SB XVI 12813 [TM
4174]; SB XXII 15803 b [TM 2276].
325
Additionally, some references to unpreserved προσαγγέλματα of this type can be found: BGU VIII 1760 [TM
4841] (50 BC) l. 7; P. Erasm. I 17 [TM 44712] (ca. 175 - 125 BC) l. 7-8; P. Tebt. I 18 [TM 3654] (115 - 114 BC) l. 12; P.
Tebt. I 19 [TM 3655] (114 BC) l. 11; P. Tebt. I 24 [TM 3660] (ca. 117 BC) l. 31; P. Tebt. III 813 [TM 5394] (186 BC) l. 6;
PSI VIII 968 [TM 43477] (1st century BC) l. 9; SB XXII 15591 [TM 41619] (149 BC) l. 7.
326
SEMEKA (Ptolemäisches Prozessrecht, p. 277) and HOMBERT & PREAUX (‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l'époque
ptolémaïque’, p. 260) briefly refer to these texts.
327
Cf. BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’, p. 47-49; DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 330.
προσάγγελμα and the ὑπόμνημα. Third, ʿn-smy also appears to have been used as
equivalent of the Greek term παράγγελμα, which seems closely related to
προσάγγελμα. Fourth, two ʿn-smy documents, P. BM Dem. 10650 [TM 369018]
(addressed to a police officer) and P. Sorb. IV 148 [TM 372048] (addressed to a
komogrammateus) use the prescript wʿ ʿn-smy n / m-bȝḥ [addressee] n-ḏr.t
[submitter], with the addressee in front: this order of identification is very unusual
for Demotic documents (see chapter V, p. 172-173), but common for προσαγγέλματα.
Fifth and last, these two documents also contain formulas of the type ỉw=y dy n=k pȝ
ʿn-smy, which should perhaps be understood as ỉ.(ỉr)=y dy n=k pȝ ʿn-smy in second
tense (“it is to you that I give the ʿn-smy ...”), reminding of the Greek
formula ἐπιδίδωμί σοι τὸ προσάγγελμα ὅπως, in the same way as ỉ.ỉr=y dy n=k pȝ
mḳmḳ reminds of ἐπιδίδωμί σοι τὸ ὑπόμνημα ὅπως (cf. chapter IV, p. 166). Still, it
remains hard to prove on the basis of the available material that the ʿn-smy was
really used as Demotic counterpart of the προσάγγελμα, and in any case none of the
preserved ʿn-smy appears to be a petition in the strict sense.
The following discussions will focus on the later προσαγγέλματα of the first type:
dispute-related documents composed in a similar format as the later ὑπόμνημα. It is
this group of documents that has led scholars to identify the προσάγγελμα as an
additional Ptolemaic petition type. The early προσαγγέλματα, the later
προσαγγέλματα of the rare second type (agricultural reports) and the ʿn-smy are less
relevant in this context. Unless otherwise indicated, the expression “later
προσαγγέλματα” will hence be used to refer to the later προσαγγέλματα of the first
type alone, and not to the later προσαγγέλματα of the second type.
1.2. Later προσαγγέλματα versus ὑπομνήματα
As discussed above, several dispute-related documents (mostly petitions) composed

in a similar format as the later ὑπόμνημα are referred to as προσαγγέλματα in the
sources from 183 BC onwards. These later προσαγγέλματα are introduced by the
formula τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος,328 which had become the standard prescript of
the ὑπόμνημα from about 240 - 220 BC (see chapter II, p. 67-69), and resemble the
later ὑπομνήματα in other respects as well, as can be illustrated by the following
example:
- P. Dion. 10 [TM 3093] (109 BC), called προσαγγέλμα
Νικάνορι καὶ τοῖς συν̣φυ

̣ λακίταις Κιρκᾶ | παρὰ Παή̣σ̣ιος τοῦ καὶ ̣[ ̣]γης
Κεφαλᾶτος τῶν ἐ̣[κ] τῆς | Ἁκώριος Λίβυς τῶν [Δ]ημητρίου ἱππέων
328
One is introduced by the formula παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος, without indication of the addressee: see below, p. 212-213
note 343.
μισθοφόρων. | τῆι νυκ̣τὶ τῆι φερο̣ύ̣σηι εἰς τὴν ιδ τοῦ Ἁθὺρ τοῦ θ (ἔτους) |
ἐπιβαλόντ̣ες τινὲ̣ς̣ \λῃ[σ]τικῷ τρόπωι/ [εἰς] τ̣ὸ̣ν̣ ὑπάρχοντά μ̣[ο]ι̣
[ο]ἶ̣κ̣[ο]ν̣ 〚π〛| περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐ̣ξ[έ]δυσαν τοὺς ἐνοικοῦν̣τα̣ς̣ κ̣αὶ | τὰ
πρὸς τὴν̣ γεωργικὴν̣ κατασκευὴν καὶ τἆλλα τὰ ἐν τῶι | αὐτῶι τόπωι
ᾤχον[τ]ο̣ ἔχοντες, ὧν τὸ καθʼ ἓν ὑπόκειται. | ἐ̣πε̣ ̣ὶ οὖν ὑπολ̣α̣μβάνω τ̣ὰ̣
τῆς ἐπιθέσεως γ̣ε̣γονέναι | ̣ Κωννῶτος Κυνοπ[ο]λ̣είτου,
καταγεινομένο̣υ δʼ ἐν τ̣ῆι | Α̣ἴθωνος, κα̣ὶ ἑ̣τέρω̣ν̣ [σὺ]ν̣ α̣ὐτῶι, οὓς τὰ̣
[ὀ]ν̣[όμα]τ̣α̣ | ἀγνοῶι, ἐπιδίδωμ̣ι ὑμῖν τὴν προσαγ̣γελίην | ὅπως οἱ αἴ̣τιοι
ἀναζη̣τηθέντες ἐξαποσταλῶσ̣ι̣ | ἐπὶ τὸν στρ̣ατηγόν, [ἵν]α̣ ἐμοὶ μὲν <τὰ>
διαπεφωνημένα | ἀποκατασ[τα]θεί̣η,̣ οἱ̣ [δ]ὲ̣ αἴτιοι τύχ̣ωσι τῶν
ἐξα|κολουθούντω̣ν. τούτου δ̣ὲ γενομένου ἔσομαι αν | [ ̣] ̣ ̣λ̣λη ̣ε ̣ ̣[ -
ca.?- ε]ὐτύχε̣[ι]. | (ἔ̣τ̣ου̣ ς̣ ̣) [θ Ἁ]θ̣ὺ̣ρ̣ ιϛ. | ἔστιν δὲ [τὸ κ]αθʼ ἕν· |
Σ̣ωτιόγχιο̣[ς]· κιτὼν κ̣αὶ ἱμάτιον καὶ σάκκον, | Πλῆνις ὁ̣ ἀ̣δελφός· κιτών,
ἄροτρον α, ζυγ̣[ὸ]ν α, | Παπτῦτι[ς]· κιτὼ̣[ν] καὶ σάκκον | καὶ τῶν
[ἐ]π̣ιξενω[θέ]ντων· ἱματίων.
“To Nikanor and the fellow phylakitai of Kirka, from Paesis alias ... son
of Kephalas, of those from Hakoris, Libyan, of the hippeis misthophoroi
of Demetrios. On the night before the 14th of Hathyr of year 9, certain
individuals, who made a thievish attack on my house in the
neighbourhood of the same village, stripped bare those who were
inside and went away with both the agricultural tools and the other
things that were there, of which the itemised list is appended below.
Since, in fact, I suspect that this attack is the work of Konnos, a
Kynopolite who is now living in the house of Aithon (?), and of others
along with him, whose names I do not know, I submit this prosangelia
to you so that the culprits may be searched and sent to the strategos, in
order that the lost items may be restituted to me, and the culprits may
receive the consequences (of their actions). If this occurs, I will ... .
Farewell. Year 19, Hathyr 16. This is the itemised list: from Sotionchis, a
tunic, a cloak and a sack; from Plenis, my brother, a tunic, one plough
and one yoke; from Paptytis, a tunic and a sack; from the visitors,
cloaks.”
- P. Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763] (113 BC), called ὑπόμνημα
Μεγχεῖ κωμογραμματεῖ | Κερκε[οσ]ίρεως | π̣[αρ]ὰ Πόρτιος τοῦ Πόρτιος |

βασι̣λικοῦ γεωργοῦ τῶν | ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς. τῆι η | τοῦ Μεσορὴ τοῦ δ (ἔτους)
ἐπ[ελ]|θόντες ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνεκτισ|μ̣[ένην μοι οἰκίαν] Πύρριχος | [Διονυσίου
τῶν κα(τοίκων) ἱπ(πέων) καὶ Ἡράκλει]ος | [Ποσειδίππου τῶν ἐκ τῆς
αὐτῆς σ]ὺν | [ἄλλοις π]λ̣είστοις | [ἐν μαχαίραις γενόμ]ενοι ἔνδον |
[ἀπηνέγκ]α̣ντο | [τὰ ὑπογ]ε̣γραμμένα, | [οὐθενὸς ἁπ]λ̣ῶς ὄντος μοι |
[πρὸς αὐτούς.] διὸ ἐπι|[δίδωμί] σ̣οι ὅπως περὶ | [ἑκάστων ὑ]π̣ο̣γρ(αφὴν)
ποιήσ̣[ηι] | [προσ]υποτάξαντα καὶ τοῦ | [ὑπο]μ̣νή(ματος) ἀντίγρ(αφον)
οἷς καθήκει | [ἵνα τῶν ἐγκαλουμ]έ̣νω ̣ ν | [κατασταθέντων ἐγ]ὼ̣ μὲν |

[κομίσωμ]α̣ι τὰ ἐμαυτοῦ, | αὐτοὶ δ̣[ὲ τύχ]ω̣σι τῆς ἁρμο|ζούση̣[ς
ἐπι]πλήξεως. | εὐτύχει. | ἔστιν̣ δ̣[ὲ] τ̣ὸ̣ [κ]αθʼ ἕν· | ἱμάτιον γυ(ναικεῖον)
ἄξι(ον) χα(λκοῦ) ’Γω | χειτῶνα παιδι(κὸν) φ | ποτή(ριον) κ̣[ -ca.?- ] |
προσκ[εφάλαιον -ca.?- ].
“To Menches, komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris, from Portis son of

Portis, royal farmer, of those from the same village. On the 8th of
Mesore of year 4, Pyrrichos son of Dionysios, of the katoikoi hippeis,
and Herakleios son of Poseidippos, of those from the same village, made
an attack on my rebuilt house, together with very many other people
with swords. Having entered inside, they carried off the below-written
items, although there were absolutely no issues between me and them.
I therefore submit this to you, so that you may add a subscription
concerning all of this and further forward a copy of this hypomnema to
whom it concerns, in order that, when the accused have been brought
up, I may recover what is mine and they may receive the fitting
punishment. Farewell. This is the itemised list: a women’s cloak worth
3800 copper (drachmai), a children’s tunic (worth) 500 (copper
drachmai), a drinking cup ... , a pillow ... .”
Both P. Dion. 10 [TM 3093] and P. Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763] are petitions concerning
theft addressed to village officials. They date from the same period and make use of
a similar set of formulas. The first petition is addressed to the police and the second
to the komogrammateus, but in other cases documents to the komogrammateus are
designated as προσάγγελμα and documents to the police as ὑπόμνημα. Which
reasons, then, did the authors of these documents have to call P. Dion. 10 [TM 3093]
a προσάγγελμα (προσαγγελία) and P. Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763] a ὑπόμνημα? Is it still
possible to make a distinction between documents that are called either
προσάγγελμα or ὑπόμνημα during this period? A good understanding of this
problem is also essential for the interpretation of the texts that use the prescript
τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος but that are not explicitly referred to as ὑπόμνημα or
προσάγγελμα in the sources (which greatly outnumber the texts that are explicitly
designated as such): can these texts still be classified as either ὑπομνήματα or
προσαγγέλματα? Some of these introduce statements or requests with the verb
προσαγγέλλω (resulting in constructions such as προσαγγέλλω ὅτι or προσαγγέλλω
σοι ὅπως): does the appearance of such constructions indicate that these texts
should also be considered as προσαγγέλματα rather than ὑπομνήματα?
1.3. Previous discussions of the later προσαγγέλματα
Previous studies have recognised the problematic relation between the later
προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα, but still the later προσάγγελμα and ὑπόμηνμα
have always been treated as two separate types of texts. What is more, several texts
that are not explicitly designated as προσαγγέλματα in the sources have also been
interpreted as such by modern scholars, and set apart from the remaining
documents with the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος. In what follows, the
arguments of these scholars are briefly recapitulated.
1.3.1. The later προσαγγέλματα according to HOMBERT & PRÉAUX
The first scholars who devoted a detailed study to the Ptolemaic προσάγγελμα were
HOMBERT & PRÉAUX.329 Their article, published in 1942, is still widely cited, and their
image of the Ptolemaic προσαγγέλματα has never really been contested. In the
introduction of the article, HOMBERT & PRÉAUX explain the aim of their study, viz. to
examine “les déclarations qui comportent un mot de la famille de προσαγγέλλω, en
rattachant à ce groupe les documents qui, par la teneur, la forme et la fonction,
nous paraissent devoir leur être assimilés” (p. 259). After a discussion of the early
προσάγγελμα notifications (p. 260-265), HOMBERT & PRÉAUX turn to the later
προσαγγέλματα and their problematic relation to the ὑπομνήματα (p. 265-273).330
HOMBERT & PRÉAUX start by saying that in contrast to the early προσαγγέλματα, the
later προσαγγέλματα cannot always be distinguished from the ὑπομνήματα
addressed to authorities lower than the strategos (p. 265): “le type du προσάγγελμα
perd sa netteté au point qu’il est souvent impossible de le distinguer des
ὑπομνήματα adressés à des fonctionnaires inférieurs au stratège”. Next, they give
an example of a text which they view as a typical example of the later προσάγγελμα:
P. Tebt. III 798 [TM 7857], a 2nd century BC petition to the komogrammateus, in
which a man named Asklepiades recounts that he was attacked in the bathhouse
and asks the komogrammateus to secure the culprits (p. 265-266). This document
uses the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος, but does not contain any form of the
329
HOMBERT & PREAUX, ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’. For earlier discussions of the
Ptolemaic προσάγγελμα, see in particular BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht, p.
36-40; MEYER, Juristische Papyri, p. 276-277; ZUCKER, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Gerichtsorganisation, p. 65-72, 85-86, 94-
97.
330
HOMBERT & PRÉAUX also categorised two documents with the early προσάγγελμα prescript among the later
προσαγγέλματα, but this issue has already been dealt with above (p. 198 note 319). The early προσαγγέλματα
without notification function and the later προσαγγέλματα of the second type discussed above (p. 200) are
mentioned by HOMBERT & PRÉAUX, but not examined in detail.
word family of προσαγγέλλω. HOMBERT & PRÉAUX do not explain why they choose
this specific example. The text goes as follows:
Πετοσίρει κωμογραμματεῖ Ὀξυρύγχων | παρʼ Ἀσκληπιάδου τοῦ

σιτολογοῦντος τὸ̣ν̣ | ἱππικὸν τῆς Πολέμωνος μερίδος. τῆι ̣ ̣ | τοῦ
ἐνεστῶτος μηνὸς λουομέ[νου μ]ο̣υ̣ | ἐν τῶι ἐναυτόθι βαλανείωι,
ἀρρωστοῦν|τός μου βαρέως, καὶ κἀμοῦ ἀναβάντος | ἐγ βαλα[ν]είου
ἐγλελυμένου, διὰ τὸ ἀ̣ργ̣ ̣υ̣(ρίου) | (δραχμὰς) ιε ἔχειν Πᾶσις Ἀρετίωνος
καὶ vac. | καὶ vac. τῶν ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ | βαλανείου παραχυτῶν
ἐπιλάβον̣τ̣αι̣ ̣ | τοῦ παιδαρίου μου βουλομέν̣[ου] μ̣ε̣ | ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπικιμένων
α̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] | καὶ καμ̣οῦ
̣ ἐ[μ]βλέψαντος ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ω̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ | οἱ δὲ
ἀστοχήσαντες τοῦ καλῶς ἔχοντος | καὶ διαραπίσαντές με καὶ
λακτίσαντες | εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν ὤιοντο ἐκ[φ]εύ|ξε[ι]ν. τ[ὸ] δ̣ὲ περὶ ἐμὲ
παιδάριον | βοήσαντες τὸν βασιλέα παρεγενή|θη[σα]ν̣ πλ̣[ε]ί̣[ο]ν̣ες,
Πετεσούχου δὲ τοῦ | Ἁ̣ρπ ̣ ̣ο̣χρατ̣ίου ἑνὸς τῶν βαλανευτῶν |
παραγενομένου τῆι βίαι χρησάμενος | ἀπέλυσεν τοὺς προγεγραμμένους |
αἰτίους. ἐπεὶ οὖν κινδυνεύω τοῦ | βίου οἷς πέπληγα πλήγαις, ἀξιῶ οὖν |
ἐὰν φαίνηται ἀσφαλισάμενος τοὺς | αἰτίους μέχρι τοῦ εἰς κοινὸν
συν|έδριον ἐλθεῖν. ἐπιδέδωκα δὲ | καὶ τοῖς εἰθισμένοις τὸ ἀντίγρα|φον.
εὐτύχει.
“To Petosiris, komogrammateus of Oxyrhyncha, from Asklepiades, the

sitologos for the cavalry dues of the meris of Polemon. On the xth of the
present month, when I was bathing in the bathhouse here, being
seriously ill, and I had come out of bath in a faint condition, Pasis son of
Aretion, ... and ... , attendants of the said bathhouse, seized my servant,
because he carried 15 drachmai of silver, while he tried to ... me from
those who pressed against ... , and when I looked ... , they beat me up
and kicked me in the stomach without regard for decency, believing
that they could escape. When the servant who was with me cried out
the name of the king, however, several persons turned up, but
Petesouchos son of Harpochratios, one of the responsibles of the bath,
arrived and released the aforementioned culprits with violence. Since I
am in danger of my life now, owing to the blows I received, I ask you, if
it seems good, to secure the culprits until we go to the common council.
I have also submitted a copy to the usual authorities. Farewell.”331
After this example, HOMBERT & PRÉAUX argue that the later προσαγγέλματα all relate
to crime (p. 266) and can be addressed to various authorities, but never to the
strategos (p. 266-268). Next, they point out that in contrast to the early
προσαγγέλματα, the later προσαγγέλματα are generally styled as petitions (p. 269):
(1) they start with the same prescript as the later ὑπομνήματα, (2) most of them end
with εὐτύχει, (3) their descriptive sections are less compact than those of the early
331
For the nature of the κοινὸν συνέδριον, see WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 55.
προσάγγελμα notifications and (4) they make a request. After a discussion of the
variety of requests that appear in the later προσαγγέλματα (p. 270-272), HOMBERT &
PRÉAUX conclude (p. 273) that complaints to officials from the 2nd and 1st century BC
can be divided in two major categories: (1) complaints submitted directly to high
authorities such as the strategos, which are all ὑπομνήματα according to HOMBERT &
PRÉAUX, and (2) complaints submitted to lower authorities, among which both
ὑπομνήματα and προσαγγέλματα can be found. 332 Within the latter group, an
unambiguous distinction between the ὑπομνήματα and προσαγγέλματα seems
impossible: “Ces deux types de documents se confondent, non seulement pour les
modernes, à qui pourraient échapper certains caractères distinctifs, mais sans doute
aussi pour les Anciens. Il arrive, en effet, que, de deux textes contemporains dont
l’objet, la fonction et le style sont analogues, l’un soit appelé ὑπόμνημα, l’autre
contienne le verbe προσαγγέλλω ou un substantif de cette famille”. In a footnote,
HOMBERT & PRÉAUX give the example of P. Tebt. I 45 [TM 3681], P. Tebt. I 46 [TM
3682], P. Tebt. II 283 [TM 42986] and P. Tebt. III 800 [TM 5383]: four texts from the 2nd
and 1st centuries BC that are designated as ὑπομνήματα by their authors and yet are
“absolument semblables à des προσαγγέλματα”.
Although HOMBERT & PRÉAUX admit that it is impossible to make a clear-cut

distinction between the later προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα addressed to
authorities lower than the strategos, they nevertheless add a list of
“προσαγγέλματα” to their article, which includes both early προσάγγελμα
notifications and later προσαγγέλματα (p. 274-286).333 They do not explain which
criteria they use for identifying documents as προσαγγέλματα in this context, but
presumably the delimitation of their corpus as described in the introduction of their
article applies for this list as well: “Nous nous proposons d’étudier les déclarations
qui comportent un mot de la famille de προσαγγέλλω, en rattachant à ce groupe les
documents qui, par la teneur, la forme et la fonction, nous paraissent devoir leur
être assimilés” (p. 259). Among the alleged later προσαγγέλματα in this list, three
groups of texts can be distinguished:
- Documents explicitly designated as προσαγγέλματα by their authors or by the

authorities who processed these texts (16 texts): BGU VI 1253 [TM 7325]; P. Dion. 10 [TM 3093];
P. Tebt. I 38 l. 10-28 [TM 3674]; P. Tebt. I 39 [TM 3675]; P. Tebt. I 138 [TM 3773]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. i l. 22-30 [TM
5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. iv l. 14-23 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. vi l. 19-26 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 1-
3 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 4-9 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 10-16 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col.
viii l. 17-28 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 29-30 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. xi l. 11 - col. xii l. 4 [TM 5379];
P. Tebt. III 799 [TM 5382]; P. Tebt. III 958 [TM 5473].
- Documents not explicitly designated as such but introducing statements or

requests with the verb προσαγγέλλω (6 texts): BGU VI 1252 [TM 7324]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 68 [TM 5286];
P. Tebt. I 44 [TM 3680]; P. Tebt. I 264 [TM 3893]; P. Tebt. III 960 [TM 7988]; UPZ II 187 [TM 3589].
332
Documents from the first group are called “ὑπόμνημα - ἔντευξις” by HOMBERT & PRÉAUX, because during the 3rd
century BC petitions to the strategos were mainly formatted as royal ἐντεύξεις.
333
Early προσαγγέλματα without notification function and later προσαγγέλματα of the second type discussed
above (p. 200) are not included in this list.
- Documents that do not use any form of the word family of προσαγγέλλω but seem
to be associated with the documents from the previous two groups “par la teneur, la
forme et la fonction” (22 texts): BGU VI 1251 [TM 4541]; BGU VI 1254 [TM 4542]; BGU VI 1255 [TM
7326]; BGU VIII 1857 [TM 4936]; P. Giss. Univ. I 6 [TM 8176]; P. Giss. Univ. I 7 [TM 8177]; P. Giss. Univ. I 8 [TM
43259]; P. Giss. Univ. I 9 [TM 42855]; P. Reinach Gr. II 97 [TM 78738]; P. Tebt. I 52 [TM 3688]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. vi
l. 1-12 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. xii l. 22-26 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 796 [TM 5381]; P. Tebt. III 797 [TM 7856]; P.
Tebt. III 798 [TM 7857]; P. Tebt. III 802 [TM 5385]; P. Tebt. III 804 [TM 5387]; P. Tebt. III 954 [TM 5470]; P. Tebt. III
964 [TM 5476]; PSI V 542 [TM 2164]; SB III 6002 [TM 5645]; SB IV 7351 [TM 5688].
In a footnote, HOMBERT & PRÉAUX remark that they are not completely certain about
the identification of seven of these last texts as προσαγγέλματα. 334 Documents
explicitly designated as ὑπομνήματα in the sources, such as the above-discussed P.
Tebt. I 45 [TM 3681], P. Tebt. I 46 [TM 3682], P. Tebt. II 283 [TM 42986] and P. Tebt. III
800 [TM 5383], which are “absolument semblables à des προσαγγέλματα”, are not
included in the list. All of this shows that, in the end, HOMBERT & PRÉAUX do not give
up their attempt to make some distinction between the later προσαγγέλματα and
ὑπομνήματα addressed to authorities lower than the strategos after all.
1.3.2. The later προσαγγέλματα in subsequent studies
The above-discussed article by HOMBERT & PRÉAUX quickly became the standard
reference work on the Ptolemaic προσάγγελμα. Since its publication, not a single
scholar has really questioned HOMBERT & PRÉAUX’s method or criticised their
conclusions. On the contrary: many scholars have continued their approach to the
material.
In 1968, some 25 years after the appearance of the study by HOMBERT & PRÉAUX, DI
BITONTO published her overview of the Ptolemaic petitions to state officials. She
added a brief and rather vague section about the nature of the Ptolemaic
προσάγγελμα to the beginning of this article.335 After repeating HOMBERT & PRÉAUX’S
distinction between the early and the later προσαγγέλματα, DI BITONTO argues that
the relation between the later προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα was marked by
contamination: “Il IIa è dunque il periodo in cui il προσάγγελμα perde la sua
fisionomia tipica (testimoniata nel IIIa) contaminandosi con l’ὑπόμνημα e infine
confondendosi con esso”. On several occasions, DI BITONTO links request
introductions of the types προσαγγέλλω σοι ὅπως and ἐπιδίδωμί σοι ὅπως to the
later προσαγγέλματα, though she admits that formulas of the latter type also appear
334
HOMBERT & PREAUX, ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’, p. 279 note 16. These texts are P.
Giss. Univ. I 6 [TM 8176], P. Giss. Univ. I 7 [TM 8177], P. Tebt. I 52 [TM 3688], P. Tebt. III 793 col. xii l. 22-26 [TM
5379], P. Tebt. III 802 [TM 5385], P. Tebt. III 804 [TM 5387] and P. Tebt. III 964 [TM 5476].
335
DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 54-56.
in documents that are explicitly designated as ὑπόμνημα.336 In her actual overview,

she lumps all petitions addressed to officials together, without distinguishing
between προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα.
In 1985, PARCA published a supplement to the list of προσαγγέλματα composed by

HOMBERT & PRÉAUX.337 In her introduction, PARCA briefly repeats the conclusions
reached by HOMBERT & PRÉAUX, and criticises DI BITONTO for lumping together the
later προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα in her petition overview. PARCA stresses that
the apparent similarity of the later προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα does not
necessarily mean that they constituted a single type of texts: “Que le προσάγγελμα
du IIe-Ier siècle ne soit plus la notification concise d’un dommage subi mais une
déclaration, avec requête, dont l’objet, la fonction et le style sont analogues à ceux
de l’ὑπόμνημα adressé à un fonctionnaire inférieur ne semble pas devoir autoriser
son assimilation, même purement formelle, à l’ὑπόμνημα” (p. 241). Just like HOMBERT
& PRÉAUX, PARCA wishes to maintain some distinction between the later
προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα, even within the category of documents addressed
to authorities lower than the strategos.
The main part of PARCA’S article consists of three lists: one list of documents that are
certainly προσαγγέλματα in her view (p. 242-244), a second list of documents that
might possibly be προσαγγέλματα (p. 245-246), and a third list of ὑπομνήματα that
bear close resemblance to προσαγγέλματα, added as a note of caution (p. 247). The
first list includes both early προσαγγέλματα (4 texts) and later προσαγγέλματα (5
texts). One of the latter is designated as προσάγγελμα by its author (SB X 10253 [TM
5798]); another is not explicitly designated as such, but introduces its request with
the verb προσαγγέλλω (SB VIII 9792 [TM 5794]); the remaining three examples do
not contain any form of the word family of προσαγγέλλω and must have been
interpreted as προσαγγέλματα because of other, unspecified reasons (P. Tebt. IV
1094 [TM 3761]; SB VI 9537 [TM 6229]; SB VIII 9674 [TM 5945]). The second list
mentions nine (mostly fragmentary) texts that might possibly be identified as later
προσαγγέλματα according to PARCA: BGU X 1908 [TM 8302]; P. Lund VI 1 [TM 6214];
P. Med. I 30 [TM 6224]; P. Strasb. Gr. VII 681 [TM 3961]; P. Strasb. Gr. VIII 701 [TM
3963]; P. Tebt. IV 1098 [TM 3908]; P. Yale I 53 [TM 41798]; PUG II 57 [TM 78854]; SB
XX 14999 [TM 8121]. None of the documents in this second list contains a form of
the word family of προσαγγέλλω. PARCA does not explain why she lists these texts as
possible examples of later προσαγγέλματα.
12 documents that were published after the studies by HOMBERT & PRÉAUX, DI BITONTO
and PARCA, were also interpreted as (possible) examples of later προσαγγέλματα by
their editors:
336
DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, p. 55, 72. See also DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di
petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, p. 109, 118.
337
PARCA, ‘Prosangelmata ptolémaïques’.
(1) In his 1987 edition of P. Köln VI 272 [TM 3202] (ca. 250 - 200 BC), MARESCH argues
that this document might be a ὑπόμνημα or a later προσάγγελμα of exceptionally
early date.338
(2) In her 1991 edition of PUG III 112 [TM 43240] (ca. 175 - 125 BC), ZINGALE argues
that this document might be a ὑπόμνημα or a later προσάγγελμα.
(3) In her 1994 edition of P. Heid. Gr. VI 381 [TM 3078] (208 - 207 / 191 - 190 BC),
DUTTENHÖFER argues that this document is probably a later προσάγγελμα.
(4-5) In his 1994 edition of SB XXII 15542 [TM 41498] (ca. 175 - 125 BC), GONIS
identifies this document as a later προσάγγελμα. He also interprets P. Erasm. I 4 [TM
44709] (ca. 175 - 125 BC) as a later προσάγγελμα, presumably because this text is
addressed to the same official as SB XXII 15542 [TM 41498].339
(6) In his 2001 edition of P. Heid. Gr. VIII 421 [TM 47299] (ca. 201 / 177 BC), KALTSAS
argues that this document might possibly be a later προσάγγελμα.
(7) In her 2002 edition of P. Lips II 126 [TM 78441] (2nd / 1st century BC), DUTTENHÖFER
identifies this document as a later προσάγγελμα.
(8-9) In his 2003 edition of P. Diosk. 1 [TM 44717] (154 BC?) and P. Diosk. 4 [TM
44720] (153 BC), COWEY identifies these two documents as later προσαγγέλματα.
(10) In her 2006 edition of P. Heid. IX 423 [TM 89278] (158 BC), ARMONI identifies the
document recorded in l. 4-15 of this text as a later προσάγγελμα.
(11) In her 2015 edition of P. Sal. Gr. 2 [TM 495485] (ca. 200 - 150 BC), TEPEDINO
GUERRRA identifies this document as a later προσάγγελμα.
(12) In his 2015 edition of P. Iand. inv. 398 [TM 218351] (ca. 150 - 100 BC), BALAMOSHEV
identifies this document as a later προσάγγελμα.
Five of these documents (P. Diosk. 1 [TM 44717]; P. Heid. IX 423 l. 4-15 [TM 89278]; P.
Iand. inv. 398 [TM 218351]; P. Sal. Gr. 2 [TM 495485]; SB XXII 15542 [TM 41498]) are
designated as προσάγγελμα by their authors or by the officials who processed these
texts, but the remaining seven documents do not contain any form of the word
family of προσαγγέλλω. The above-listed scholars were clearly heavily influenced
by the studies of HOMBERT & PRÉAUX and PARCA. They all seem to regard the later
προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα as two separate types of texts, despite the fact that
they cannot always be distinguished. Some of them do admit that they are not
certain whether a particular text should be identified as a προσάγγελμα or a
ὑπόμνημα.
338
In fact, this text is designated as mḳmḳ in its Demotic subscription, a word that was used as direct Demotic
equivalent of the Greek word ὑπόμνημα. Cf. BAETENS, ‘Some corrections to Ptolemaic petitions’, p. 284-285.
339
GONIS, ‘A new 2nd century B.C. prosangelma’, p. 232.
1.4. A reassessment of the later προσαγγέλματα
The available literature on the later προσαγγέλματα takes an ambiguous position

concerning the relation of these texts to the ὑπομνήματα: on the one hand, it is
argued that the later προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα cannot be unequivocally
distinguished from each other; on the other hand, several documents are set apart
as later προσαγγέλματα. Some of these documents are actually designated as
προσαγγέλματα in the papyri themselves. Others are not explicitly designated as
such, but introduce statements or requests with the verb προσαγγέλλω. Many of
them do not contain any form of the word family of προσαγγέλλω whatsoever, but
are categorised as later προσαγγέλματα on other (seldom precisely articulated)
grounds. This approach is confusing and raises questions. A fresh assessment of the
nature of the later προσαγγέλματα and their relation to the ὑπομνήματα seems
desirable. An examination of all the later documents explicitly designated as
προσάγγελμα in the sources will form the point of departure of this reassessment.
Afterwards, the documents that are not explicitly designated as προσαγγέλματα but
have also been categorised as such by modern scholars will be briefly discussed,
with special attention for those introducing statements or requests with the verb
προσαγγέλλω. Finally, a new solution will be proposed, namely to consider all
documents with the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος, including those designated
as προσάγγελμα, as ὑπομνήματα on the basis of their form.
1.4.1. Documents explicitly designated as προσαγγέλματα in the sources
Starting from 183 BC, several documents in a format similar to that of the later
ὑπόμνημα are explicitly referred to as προσαγγέλματα in the sources. 23 examples
of such “explicit later προσαγγέλματα” can be found:340 BGU VI 1253 [TM 7325]; P. Dion. 10
[TM 3093]; P. Diosk. 1 [TM 44717]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 423 l. 4-15 [TM 89278]; P. Iand. inv. 398 [TM 218351]; P. Münch.
III 50 [TM 5249]; P. Sal. Gr. 2 [TM 495485]; P. Tebt. I 38 l. 10-28 [TM 3674]; P. Tebt. I 39 [TM 3675]; P. Tebt. I 138
340
One of these texts, P. Münch. III 50 [TM 5249], was not yet included in the above-discussed studies and lists of
the Ptolemaic προσαγγέλματα. Its editor does not dwell on the fact that this petition is designated as
προσάγγελμα either. BGU VI 1253 [TM 7325], P. Dion. 10 [TM 3093], P. Heid. Gr. IX 423 l. 4-15 [TM 89278], P.
Münch. III 50 [TM 5249], P. Tebt. I 38 l. 10-28 [TM 3674], P. Tebt. I 138 [TM 3773], P. Tebt. III 958 [TM 5473] and SB
XXII 15542 [TM 41498] are designated as προσαγγελία, but this word was used as synonym of προσάγγελμα: see
above, p. 197. P. Tebt. III 793 [TM 5379] col. viii l. 1-3, l. 4-9, l. 10-16. 17-28 and l. 29-30 [TM 5379] constitute a
special group: only l. 10-16 is directly designated as προσάγγελμα in the text, but this document is linked to the
others through introductions of the form ἄλλο παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος. These ἄλλο’s should be understood as ἄλλο
(προσάγγελμα): cf. HOMBERT & PRÉAUX, ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’, p. 278 note 14.
SKARSOULI recently published eight new “explicit later προσαγγέλματα” in P. Oxyrhyncha, which are similar to
the examples discussed in this section, but have not been incorporated in this publication anymore.
Interestingly, the same book also contains editions of “drei Anzeigen, die als Prosangelmata betrachtet werden
könnten und trotzdem im Text selbst als Hypomnemata bezeichnet werden” (p. 18).
[TM 3773]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. i l. 22-30 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. iv l. 14-23 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. vi l.
19-26 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 1-3 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 4-9 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793
col. viii l. 10-16 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 17-28 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 29-30 [TM 5379]; P.
Tebt. III 793 col. xi l. 11 - col. xii l. 4 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 799 [TM 5382]; P. Tebt. III 958 [TM 5473]; SB X 10253
[TM 5798]; SB XXII 15542 [TM 41498].
Several similar documents are explicitly referred to as ὑπομνήματα in the sources,

however. 72 examples of such “explicit later ὑπομνήματα” can be found:341 BGU III 1012
[TM 5553]; BGU VI 1244 [TM 4405]; BGU VI 1256 [TM 4543]; BGU VIII 1756 l. 8-18 [TM 4838]; BGU VIII 1757 l. 9-11
[TM 8295]; BGU VIII 1761 l. 5-16 [TM 4842]; BGU VIII 1772 l. 30-44 [TM 4853]; BGU VIII 1796 l. 7-12 [TM 4876]; BGU
[TM 4935]; BGU VIII 1859 a [TM 4938]; BGU XVIII 2732 l. 10-24 [TM 69806]; Chrest. Wilck. 304 l. 7-16 [TM 41800];
P. Amh. Gr. II 35 [TM 8621]; P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM 5038]; P. Dion. 12 l. 6-21 [TM 3095]; P. Diosk. 6 l. 7-50 [TM
44722]; P. Duke inv. 360 [TM 58468]; P. Erasm. I 2 [TM 5049]; P. Erbstreit 16 l. 11-27 [TM 156]; P. Gen. III 126 l. 21-
46 [TM 43084]; P. Hamb. IV 238 [TM 43304]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 422 [TM 89277]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 431 [TM 89286]; P. Heid.
Gr. IX 433 [TM 89288]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138]; P. Hels. I 12 [TM 5147]; P. Köln Gr. VI 261 Ro [TM 2486]; P. Köln Gr. XI
455 [TM 112490]; P. Mich. XV 688 [TM 47503]; P. Mich. XVIII 778 [TM 8772]; P. Petrie III 32 a [TM 7422]; P. Ryl. Gr.
II 69 [TM 5287]; P. Sijpesteijn 45 l. 6-32 [TM 7883]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 91 [TM 3918]; P. Tarich. 5 g col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18
[TM 316246]; P. Tebt. I 30 l. 15-21 [TM 3666]; P. Tebt. I 31 l. 15-22 [TM 3667]; P. Tebt. I 41 [TM 78772]; P. Tebt. I 45
[TM 3681]; P. Tebt. I 46 [TM 3682]; P. Tebt. I 47 [TM 3683]; P. Tebt. I 49 [TM 3685]; P. Tebt. I 50 [TM 3686]; P. Tebt. I
53 [TM 3689]; P. Tebt. II 283 [TM 42986]; P. Tebt. III 741 l. 14-25 [TM 5344]; P. Tebt. III 792 [TM 5378]; P. Tebt. III
793 col. iii l. 19 - col. iv l. 6 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 800 [TM 5383]; P. Tebt. III 808 [TM 5391]; P. Tebt. IV 1095 [TM
3762]; P. Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763]; P. Tebt. IV 1097 [TM 3907]; P. Tebt. Pad. 10 [TM 412064]; P. Tor. Choach. 5 a [TM
3594]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 bis l. 8-33 [TM 3562]; P. Tor. Choach. 12 col. i l. 14 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 3563]; P. Yale IV 147
[TM 873587]; PSI XIII 1316 [TM 5582]; PSI XV 1512 [TM 44214]; SB XII 10770 [TM 4345]; SB XIV 11626 [TM 4255];
SB XVI 12524 [TM 14608]; SB XVIII 13735 [TM 2598]; SB XXII 15213 [TM 8511]; SB XXII 15559 [TM 8792]; UPZ II
218 col. i l. 29-36 [TM 3620]; UPZ II 220 col. ii l. 1-11 [TM 3622].
In what follows, the chronological distribution, addressees, form and content of the
above-listed “explicit later προσαγγέλματα” are examined. Of course, it is not
possible to examine all these aspects for every document, since only a few of these
texts are fully preserved. For all characteristics observed in these documents,
comparisons are made with the “explicit later ὑπομνήματα”, in order to see to what
extent these two groups of texts can be distinguished from each other or not.
Chronological distribution
All explicit later προσαγγέλματα date from the 2nd century BC. Similar texts may
have existed during the 1st century BC, but these have not been preserved. The
explicit later ὑπομνήματα have a broader date range, from the late 3rd century BC up
till the 1st century BC; 48 of them certainly date from the 2nd century BC.
341
Early ὑπομνήματα and fragmentary documents that might be either early or later ὑπομνήματα are not
included in this list.
Addressees
The explicit later προσαγγέλματα are addressed to the komogrammateus (8 texts),

police (2 texts), phrourarch (1 text) and village epistates (1 text). With the exception
of the phrourarch, all these officials are addressed in several explicit later
ὑπομνήματα as well: 12 explicit later ὑπομνήματα are addressed to the
komogrammateus, 3 to the police and 6 to the village epistates. The explicit later
ὑπομνήματα are addressed to a much wider array of authorities, however: except
for the above-listed officials, also to the strategos (13 texts: eight strategoi are also
controller of revenues, and one is nomarch), dioiketes (6 texts), basilikos
grammateus (5 texts), oikonomos (4 texts), epistrategos (3 texts), head of the
syntaxis (3 texts), laarch (2 texts), nome epistates (2 texts; one nome epistates is also
hipparch), thebarch (2 texts), chrematistai (1 text), controller of revenues (1 text)
and epimeletes (1 text).
As already discussed above, HOMBERT & PRÉAUX divide the 2nd and 1st century BC
complaints to officials in two categories: (1) complaints submitted directly to high
authorities such as the strategos, which are all ὑπομνήματα according to HOMBERT &
PRÉAUX, and (2) complaints submitted to lower authorities, among which both
ὑπομνήματα and προσαγγέλματα can be found. Although documents labelled as
προσάγγελμα indeed generally appear to have been addressed to lower authorities,
there may have been exceptions to this rule. In PSI III 169 [TM 5546], a 2nd century
BC petition concerning theft addressed to the strategos Ammonios, the petitioner
states that he has already submitted a προσάγγελμα to Ammonios earlier on.
HOMBERT and PRÉAUX argue that this earlier, non-preserved text cannot have been a
genuine προσάγγελμα, since it is addressed to the strategos, but this is circular
reasoning.342 Interestingly, the two only examples of petitions to the strategos
introducing statements with the verb προσαγγέλλω are also addressed to
Ammonios (cf. below, p. 216 with note 346).
Form
The explicit later προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα share the same prescript: τῶι
δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος.343 The two groups of texts are formatted similarly in other
respects as well.
342
HOMBERT & PREAUX, ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’, p. 267-268.
343
One explicit later προσάγγελμα (P. Tebt. I 38 l. 10-28 [TM 3674]) is introduced by the prescript παρὰ τοῦ
δεῖνος, without indication of the addressee, but this text is a copy of a προσάγγελμα, forwarded by Menches the
komogrammateus to Horos the basilikos grammateus with an accompanying letter. Possibly, Menches abridged
The body of the explicit later προσαγγέλματα is introduced by date indications (7

texts), genitive absolute constructions (3 texts), formulas of the type ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό
(1 text) and various other constructions (3 texts). The body of the explicit later
ὑπομνήματα is generally introduced in similar ways, although formulas of the type
ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό appear to be more popular in these texts: 17 explicit later
ὑπομνήματα are introduced by date indications, 13 by genitive absolute
constructions, 8 by formulas of the type ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπό (or related participle
constructions) and 13 by other constructions.
Most explicit later προσαγγέλματα contain requests. The introductions of these

requests fall into three types. First, 6 explicit later προσαγγέλματα introduce the
request with formulas of the type ἐπιδίδωμί σοι (τὸ προσάγγελμα) ὅπως. Similarly,
14 explicit later ὑπομνήματα introduce the request with formulas of the type
ἐπιδίδωμί σοι (τὸ ὑπόμνημα) ὅπως. Second, 3 explicit later προσαγγέλματα
introduce the request with the verb ἀξιῶ. This is by far the most common request
introduction in the explicit later ὑπομνήματα, attested in 42 texts. Third and last, 4
explicit later προσαγγέλματα introduce the request with formulas of the type
προσαγγέλλω σοι ὅπως. This request introduction also appears in several texts with
the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος that are not explicitly designated as
προσάγγελμα or ὑπόμνημα (see below, p. 216-217), but never in explicit later
ὑπομνήματα (although two early ὑπομνήματα introduce statements - rather than
requests - with the verb προσαγγέλλω: see below, p. 216). In the explicit later
ὑπομνήματα, some additional types of request introductions can be found: the
hybrid formula ἐπιδίδωμί σοι τὸ ὑπομνημα, ἀξιῶ (2 texts), the formula καλῶς (οὖν)
ποιήσεις (2 texts), δέομαι (1 text) and a couple of other constructions (3 texts).
Two explicit later προσαγγέλματα add a rhetorical conclusion to the request. In the
first, P. Münch. III 50 [TM 5249], the petitioner appeals to the ἀντίληψις of the
addressee: τούτου γὰρ γενομένου | [ἔσομ]α̣ι τετευχὼς ἀντιλήψεω̣ς.̣ In the second, P.
Dion. 10 [TM 3093], only the introductory formula of the conclusion is fully
preserved: τούτου δ̣ὲ γενομένου ἔσομαι αν | [ ̣] ̣ ̣λ̣λη ̣ε ̣ ̣[ -ca.?- ]. Rhetorical
conclusions appear in many explicit later ὑπομνήματα as well: 33 explicit later
ὑπομνήματα add such a conclusion after the request. 16 of these conclusions are
introduced by formulas of the type τούτου (γὰρ / δὲ) γενομένου; 10 make an appeal
to the ἀντίληψις of the addressee.
The explicit later προσαγγέλματα are closed by εὐτύχει (3 texts), εὐτύχει and the
date (2 texts), ἔρρωσο and the date (1 text), and the date without final salutation (5
texts). The explicit later ὑπομνήματα are mostly closed by εὐτύχει (41 texts), but
also by ἔρρωσο (1 text) and the date without final salutation (5 texts).
the original prescript of the προσάγγελμα, because he had already indicated in the forwarding letter that the
προσάγγελμα was addressed to him. See chapter II, p. 111, 134 for other documents that use this exceptional
prescript.
Content
As far as they are preserved, all explicit later προσαγγέλματα appear to concern
criminal acts: theft (9 texts), violence (8 texts), damage to property (2 texts) and
illegal trafficking of oil (2 texts). All of these themes appear in explicit later
ὑπομνήματα as well: 11 of them relate to theft, 10 to violence, 11 to damage to
property and 1 to illegal oil trafficking. The explicit later ὑπομνήματα also concern
various other matters, however, not exclusively of criminal nature.
Most of the explicit later προσαγγέλματα are petitions, with requests. Various
requests can be found in these documents, but all of these appear in explicit later
ὑπόμνημα petitions as well:
- requests to summon, send or bring the other party before an authority (4 explicit
later προσαγγέλματα and 19 explicit later ὑπομνήματα);
- requests for examination (2 explicit later προσαγγέλματα and 8 explicit later

ὑπομνήματα);
- requests for punishment (2 explicit later προσαγγέλματα and 14 explicit later

- requests to make the other party hand over money or movables (3 explicit later
προσαγγέλματα and 15 explicit later ὑπομνήματα);
- requests to seize or block some property (1 explicit later προσάγγελμα and 2

explicit later ὑπομνήματα);
- requests to forward (a copy of) the submitted petition to other authorities (2

explicit later προσαγγέλματα and 15 explicit later ὑπομνήματα);
- requests to secure the accused (1 explicit later προσάγγελμα and 4 explicit later
- requests to enter the submitted petition in the official records (4 explicit later
προσαγγέλματα and 5 explicit later ὑπομνήματα);
- requests to add a subscription to the submitted petition (1 explicit later

προσάγγελμα and 7 explicit later ὑπομνήματα);
- requests to search the culprits (2 explicit later προσαγγέλματα and 2 explicit later
- requests to inform other authorities of certain matters (1 explicit later

προσάγγελμα and 2 explicit later ὑπομνήματα).
The explicit later ὑπόμνημα petitions are much more varied, however, and make
many other sorts of requests as well.
One explicit later προσάγγελμα, P. Tebt. III 793 col. viii l. 4-9 [TM 5379], is clearly not
a petition, but a notification of theft without request. Explicit later ὑπομνήματα
without petitioning function have been preserved as well (7 texts), but none of
them is a notification of crime.
Conclusion
The survey has shown that the explicit later προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα
overlap with each other in about all possible respects. A handful of explicit later
προσαγγέλματα show traits for which no parallel can be found among the explicit
later ὑπομνήματα: three introduce the request with formulas of the type
προσαγγέλλω σοι ὅπως, one is addressed to the phrourarch, and another notifies
the authorities of a crime without making a request. None of these traits constitutes
an essential feature of the explicit later προσαγγέλματα, however. Not a single
characteristic seems to distinguish the explicit later προσαγγέλματα as a whole
from the explicit later ὑπομνήματα. Even the basic distinction between ὑπομνήματα
addressed to high authorities such as the strategos and ὑπομνήματα /
προσαγγέλματα addressed to lower authorities may have been less pronounced than
usually believed. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the explicit later
προσαγγέλματα constitute a rather homogenous group of texts: they all appear to
concern criminal acts, and most of them are addressed to the komogrammateus or
police. The explicit later ὑπομνήματα have a much broader scope: they are
regularly, but not exclusively related to crime; they can be submitted to the
komogrammateus or police, but to many other authorities as well.
1.4.2. Documents that are not designated as προσαγγέλματα in the sources but have
also been categorised as such by modern scholars
48 documents from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC that are not explicitly designated as
προσαγγέλματα in the sources have also been categorised as (possible) examples of
later προσαγγέλματα by modern scholars: BGU VI 1251 [TM 4541]; BGU VI 1252 [TM 7324]; BGU VI
1254 [TM 4542]; BGU VI 1255 [TM 7326]; BGU VIII 1857 [TM 4936]; BGU X 1908 [TM 8302]; P. Diosk. 4 [TM 44720];
P. Erasm. I 4 [TM 44709]; P. Giss. Univ. I 6 [TM 8176]; P. Giss. Univ. I 7 [TM 8177]; P. Giss. Univ. I 8 [TM 43259]; P.
Giss. Univ. I 9 [TM 42855]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 381 [TM 3078]; P. Heid. Gr. VIII 421 [TM 47299]; P. Köln VI 272 [TM 3202];
P. Lips II 126 [TM 78441]; P. Lund VI 1 [TM 6214]; P. Med. I 30 [TM 6224]; P. Reinach Gr. II 97 [TM 78738]; P. Ryl.
Gr. II 68 [TM 5286]; P. Strasb. Gr. VII 681 [TM 3961]; P. Strasb. Gr. VIII 701 [TM 3963]; P. Tebt. I 44 [TM 3680]; P.
Tebt. I 52 [TM 3688]; P. Tebt. I 264 [TM 3893]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. vi l. 1-12 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. xii l. 22-
26 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 796 [TM 5381]; P. Tebt. III 797 [TM 7856]; P. Tebt. III 798 [TM 7857]; P. Tebt. III 802 [TM
5385]; P. Tebt. III 804 [TM 5387]; P. Tebt. III 954 [TM 5470]; P. Tebt. III 960 [TM 7988]; P. Tebt. III 964 [TM 5476]; P.
Tebt. IV 1094 [TM 3761]; P. Tebt. IV 1098 [TM 3908]; P. Yale I 53 [TM 41798]; PSI V 542 [TM 2164]; PUG II 57 [TM
78854]; PUG III 112 [TM 43240]; SB III 6002 [TM 5645]; SB IV 7351 [TM 5688]; SB VI 9537 [TM 6229]; SB VIII 9674
[TM 5945]; SB VIII 9792 [TM 5794]; SB XX 14999 [TM 8121]; UPZ II 187 [TM 3589].
Such categorisations are problematic, however: if the documents with prescript τῶι
δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος called προσαγγέλματα in the sources overlap with the
documents called ὑπομνήματα in every possible way (as argued above), there are no
stable criteria to set apart other so-called “προσαγγέλματα” from the remaining
documents with the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος.
Still, one subgroup of these texts deserves further attention. Some of the documents
that are not explicitly designated as προσαγγέλματα in the sources but are
categorised as later προσαγγέλματα by HOMBERT & PRÉAUX and PARCA introduce a
request or statement with the verb προσαγγέλλω. Six introduce the request with
expressions of the type προσαγγέλλω σοι ὅπως.344 As discussed above, this request
formula also appears in a couple of explicit later προσαγγέλματα, but never in
explicit later ὑπομνήματα. One introduces a statement with the expression
προσαγγέλλω ὅτι.345 In fact, seven additional texts from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC
with the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος that introduce statements with
προσαγγέλλω can be found, which are not listed by HOMBERT & PRÉAUX or PARCA. Two
of them were explicitly left out of account by HOMBERT & PRÉAUX because they are
addressed to the strategos.346 Five of them have simply never been interpreted as
προσαγγέλματα or discussed in this context.347 It seems more logical to examine all
these documents together, however. How do these texts relate to the documents
that are actually designated as προσαγγέλματα in the sources?
First of all, it has to be stressed that the verb προσαγγέλλω was never inextricably
linked to προσαγγέλματα. Two early ὑπομνήματα, which explicitly refer to
themselves as ὑπόμνημα in the prescript, also introduce statements with
προσαγγέλλω.348 Moreover, P. Tebt. III 739 [TM 5342], an official report from the 2nd
century BC, links the verb to the submission of an ἔντευξις: Καλλιάνακτος τῶν ἐκ
τοῦ [Ἡρ]ακλεοπολίτου πραγματικῶν προσ|αγγείλαντος διʼ ἐντεύξε[ως] (...).
Nevertheless, nine of the above-listed texts that introduce requests or statements
with προσαγγέλλω do bear close resemblance to the explicit later προσαγγέλματα:
they are petitions concerning crime (i.c. theft, violence, damage to property, grave
344
BGU VI 1252 [TM 7324]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 68 [TM 5286]; P. Tebt. I 44 [TM 3680]; P. Tebt. I 264 [TM 3893]; P. Tebt. III
960 [TM 7988]; SB VIII 9792 [TM 5794].
345
UPZ II 187 [TM 3589].
346
PSI III 168 [TM 5545] and PSI III 172 [TM 44132], addressed to the strategos Ammonios (cf. above, p. 212).
347
BGU VIII 1779 [TM 4860]; O. Strasb. I 772 [TM 44031]; P. Mich. XVIII 780 a [TM 8774]; P. Tarich. 6 a [TM 316247];
P. Tarich. 6 b [TM 316248].
348
P. Hamb. IV 237 [TM 43303]; P. Hibeh I 72 l. 4-14 [TM 8221].
robbery and poaching), addressed to the komogrammateus, police and strategos.349

The use of the verb προσαγγέλλω in these documents is clearly closely related to
the use of the word προσάγγελμα in the explicit later προσαγγέλματα. The
remaining five texts are of a different nature: BGU VIII 1779 [TM 4860] is a petition
to the strategos concerning unjust tax charges; O. Strasb. I 772 [TM 44031] is a
declaration of property, addressed to three tax farmers; P. Mich. XVIII 780 a [TM
8774] is a report concerning the debts of a holder of the beer concession; P. Tarich. 6
a [TM 316247] and P. Tarich. 6 b [TM 316248], lastly, are two drafts for a petition to
the dioiketes concerning a concession for funerary undertakers. In these
documents, the verb προσαγγέλλω seems to be used in a more general sense.
1.4.3. The later προσαγγέλματα as ὑπομνήματα
Traditionally, the relation between the later προσαγγέλματα and ὑπομνήματα has
been vaguely described in terms of mix-up, confusion or contamination, but the
picture becomes much simpler if all documents with the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ
τοῦ δεῖνος are viewed as ὑπομνήματα on the basis of their form, occasionally
designated as προσαγγέλματα on the basis of their content. During the 3rd century
BC, the προσάγγελμα still constituted an autonomous text format, with prescripts
containing the word προσάγγελμα or προσαγγέλλει, mainly used for notifications of
crime to lower authorities. At about the turn of the 3rd/2nd century BC, this early
προσάγγελμα format disappeared and its function was largely taken over by the
ὑπόμνημα. This ὑπόμνημα had recently undergone a makeover: at about 240 - 220
BC, the early ὑπόμνημα format had been replaced by the later ὑπόμνημα format,
marked by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος. After the integration of the
προσάγγελμα in the ὑπόμνημα format around the turn of the 3rd/2nd century BC,
documents with this prescript can be called ὑπομνήματα because of their form and
προσαγγέλματα because of their content, in particular when they concern criminal
acts and are addressed to lower authorities, like the early προσάγγελμα notifications
used to do. Similarly, they can make use of the verb προσαγγέλλω. The Ptolemaic
declarations of property and offers for immovables and concessions auctioned by
the state in ὑπόμνημα format provide good parallels: some of them are designated
as ὑπόμνημα because of their form, while at the same time others are designated as
ἀπογραφή or ὑπόστασις because of their content (and use the verbs ἀπογράφομαι or
ὑφίσταμαι).350
349
BGU VI 1252 [TM 7324]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 68 [TM 5286]; P. Tebt. I 44 [TM 3680]; P. Tebt. I 264 [TM 3893]; P. Tebt. III
960 [TM 7988]; PSI III 168 [TM 5545]; PSI III 172 [TM 44132]; SB VIII 9792 [TM 5794]; UPZ II 187 [TM 3589].
350
See chapter II, p. 136-138. Cf. also chapter V, p. 195 note 314 about Roman period lease ὑπομνήματα
designated as ἀναφόριον or μίσθωσις.
In this line of thought, it does not make sense to divide Ptolemaic documents with
the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος in two distinct groups, later προσαγγέλματα
versus later ὑπομνήματα. At most, the later προσαγγέλματα can be understood as a
subgroup of the later ὑπομνήματα, consisting of petitions and notificiations
regarding crime addressed to lower authorities (though possibly also the strategos:
cf. above). Even then, one should keep in mind that προσάγγελμα and προσαγγέλλω
were rather general terms meaning “report” - “to report”, “declaration” - “to
declare” or “denouncement” - “to denounce”, also used in other contexts (e.g.
agricultural reports).351 During the Roman period, the words continued to be used in
this informal sense, mostly in connection to declarations of property and liturgy
nominations, both composed in the ὑπόμνημα format.352
For these reasons, the later προσαγγέλματα have been included among the later
ὑπομνήματα in this study.353
351
The words ἐμφανισμός and ἐμφανίζω seem to have been similar general terms: cf. ARMONI in P. Tarich., p. 30-
31; SEMEKA, Ptolemäisches Prozessrecht, p. 277.
352
The following documents from the Roman period are designated as προσάγγελμα: BGU II 379 [TM 9142]
(declaration of property in ὑπόμνημα format from 67 AD); P. Flor. I 2 l. 13-40 [TM 23526], l. 47-67 [TM 23527], l.
68-90 [TM 23528], l. 91-113 [TM 23529], l. 114-135 [TM 23530], l. 147-162 [TM 23531], l. 177-192 [TM 23532], l. 209-
229 [TM 23533], l. 240-254 [TM 23534], l. 261-279 [TM 23535] (all liturgy nominations in ὑπόμνημα format from
265 AD); P. Oxy. III 520 [TM 20650] (report of sale from 143 AD); P. Oxy. X 1254 l. 14-34 [TM 21792] (liturgy
nomination in ὑπόμνημα format from 260 AD); P. Sakaon 51 [TM 13071] (liturgy nomination in ὑπόμνημα format
from 324 AD). Other Roman period documents that use the verb προσαγγέλλω are: BGU I 112 [TM 8886]
(declaration of property in ὑπόμνημα format from 60-61 AD); BGU IV 1061 [TM 18506] (petition in ὑπόμνημα
format from 14 BC); BGU XIII 2252 [TM 9660] (liturgy nomination in ὑπόμνημα format from 330 AD); Chrest.
Wilck. 312 [TM 11665] (notice of surrender of a lease in ὑπόμνημα format from ca. 55 AD); P. Col. VIII 213 [TM
10547] (declaration of property from ca. 84 - 105 AD); P. Fay. 31 [TM 10862] (declaration of property in ὑπόμνημα
format from 125 - 130 AD); P. Leit. 3 [TM 11614] (liturgy nomination in ὑπόμνημα format from ca. 313 AD); P.
Sakaon 52 [TM 13072] (liturgy nomination in ὑπόμνημα format from ca. 326 AD); SB XXII 15786 [TM 41710]
(liturgy nomination in ὑπόμνημα format from ca. 310 AD); SB XXII 15787 [TM 41711] (liturgy nomination in
ὑπόμνημα format from the 4th century AD); SB XXIV 16048 [TM 41590] (liturgy nomination in ὑπόμνημα format
from ca. 305 AD); SB XXVIII 16899 [TM 133278] (declaration of property from 60-61 AD). Cf. references in
HOMBERT & PREAUX, ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’, p. 259-273; MASCELLARI, Le petizioni
nell’Egitto Romano, p. 21-22.
353
Five texts without any form of the word family of προσαγγέλλω that HOMBERT & PRÉAUX and PARCA
nevertheless identify as possible examples of later προσαγγέλματα are so fragmentary that they cannot be safely
identifed as ὑπομνήματα, however. BGU X 1908 [TM 8302]; P. Lund VI 1 [TM 6214]; P. Med. I 30 [TM 6224]; P.
Reinach Gr. II 97 [TM 78738]; P. Strasb. Gr. VII 681 [TM 3961]. BGU X 1908 [TM 8302] and P. Strasb. Gr. VII 681 [TM
3961] have been included among the fragmentary Greek petitions discussed in chapter III. P. Lund VI 1 [TM
6214], P. Med. I 30 [TM 6224] and P. Reinach Gr. II 97 [TM 78738] are not further discussed in this study.
2. THE PERSONAL DELIVERY OF ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα AND

mḳmḳ TO THEIR ADDRESSEE
In his fundamental study on the Ptolemaic ἔντευξις and ὑπόμνημα, published in

1930, BICKERMANN argued that documents in these two formats were normally
delivered to their addressee by the interested party in person.354 Later, DEPAUW
argued that the same is true for mḳmḳ.355 Both BICKERMANN and DEPAUW stress that
this constitutes an essential distinction between communications styled as
ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ on the one hand and communications styled as
letters on the other hand: in the case of letters, sender and addressee are spatially
separated from each other and third parties are involved in order to transport the
message. In this section, the available evidence and possible reasons for this
particular submission procedure are reviewed.356
2.1. Evidence
Two general indications in favour of the above-described hypothesis that ἐντεύξεις,

ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ were delivered to their addressees in person, are given by
(1) the verbs referring to the transferral of these documents and (2) the absence of
exterior addresses in these documents:
(1) Ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ are generally “handed over” or “submitted”
to their addressee (δίδωμι, ἀποδίδωμι, εἰσδίδωμι, ἐπιδίδωμι, ἐμβάλλω, dy), whereas
letters are “sent” (mostly ἀποστέλλω and hb).357 Two documents from the archive of
Zenon exceptionally refer to ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα “sent” (ἀποστέλλω) to their
addressee: P. Cairo Zen. III 59496 [TM 1134] and PSI IV 419 [TM 2102]. Both
references concern messages by prisoners, however. The unexpected use of
354
BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 156-161, 169-172, 178, 181.
355
DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 4, 329-330.
356
A couple of exceptional early ὑπομνήματα appear to be notes for personal use rather than communications
addressed to another party (see chapter II, p. 83-84). Evidently, they are not relevant for this examination.
Possibly, certain other types of documents were also personally handed over to their addressee, like the 3rd
century BC προσαγγέλματα (cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 181 note 4), but
this section only concerns ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ.
357
Cf. BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht, p. 29; BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken
Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 157-158, 170; GUÉRAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxxi. For the verb ἐμβάλλω in expressions
referring to the submission of ἐντεύξεις and for the use of vessels (ἀγγεῖα) in which certain petitions may have
been deposited (ἐμβάλλω), see in particular GUÉRAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxxi-xxxv; MCGING, ‘Illegal salt in the
Lycopolite nome’, p. 46-47; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 14-15, 67, 70 note 28. For the verb
hb, without object, see DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 255-257.
ἀποστέλλω in this context might be linked to their inability to leave prison and
submit their ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα themselves.358 It is not clear who submitted
the documents in their place.
(2) Letters often contain an exterior address, which allowed the messenger to
identify the addressee after the message had been folded and sealed.359 This exterior
address is generally missing in ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ.360 21 exceptions
with exterior address can be found: 11 non-royal ἐντεύξεις, 361 six early
ὑπομνήματα, 362 three later ὑπομνήματα, 363 and one mḳmḳ. 364 Most of these
exceptions come from the archive of Zenon (15 texts) and other 3 rd century BC
contexts (3 texts); only five of them are petitions. Again, three of these petitions
come from prisoners: BGU VIII 1821 [TM 4900], P. Cairo Zen. III 59492 [TM 1130] and
P. Tebt. III 772 [TM 5364]. Just like the exceptional references discussed in the
paragraph above, the exterior addresses in these documents might be linked to the
inability of the prisoners to submit their ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα themselves. In
the other cases, it is unclear how the exterior addresses should be interpreted: were
all of these messages exceptionally transferred to their addressee through
intermediaries, or were the exterior addresses added for another reason? At any
rate, the predominance of the 3rd century BC examples can hardly be coincidental:
possibly, the procedural distinction between letters on the one hand and ἐντεύξεις
and ὑπομνήματα on the other hand was still somewhat less pronounced or less well-
known during this early period.
Besides these two general indications, a couple of additional sources support the
above-described hypothesis:
- Some documents refer to petitioners submitting ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα to the

sovereign and other important authorities during visits in the χώρα.365 Especially
interesting are the royal ἔντευξις petitions from the archive of the katochoi of the
358
BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 158, 170.
359
For the use of exterior addresses in letters, see DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 113, 122-127.
360
Cf. BAETENS & DEPAUW, ‘A Demotic Petition about the Misconduct of an Official’, p. 194; BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge
zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 156, 158, 170; DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 326, 330.
361
P. Cairo Zen. I 59021 [TM 681]; P. Cairo Zen. I 59034 [TM 694]; P. Cairo Zen. I 59121 [TM 770]; P. Cairo Zen. I
59122 [TM 771]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59492 [TM 1130]; P. Col. Zen. I 51 [TM 1767]; P. Mich. Zen. 60 [TM 1960]; P. Petrie
Kleon 50 [TM 44593]; P. Petrie Kleon 55 [TM 7647]; PSI IV 422 [TM 2105]; PSI VI 611 [TM 2220].
362
P. Cairo Zen. III 59301 [TM 945]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59307 [TM 951]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59384 [TM 1027]; P. Cairo Zen.
III 59439 [TM 1079]; PSI V 528 [TM 2150]; PSI VI 593 [TM 2203].
363
BGU VIII 1821 [TM 4900]; P. Tebt. III 772 [TM 5364]; P. Tor. Choach. 3 [TM 3591].
364
P. Syrac. 262 [TM 316183].
365
P. Tarich. 3 [TM 316243] l. 4-5; P. Tor. Choach. 12 [TM 3563] col. i l. 16-18; P. Vindob. G 56637 [TM 703255] l. 12-
13; SB XVIII 13093 [TM 2520] l. 6-7; UPZ 14 [TM 3405] l. 105-106; UPZ 15 [TM 3406] l. 6-8; UPZ I 16 [TM 3407] l. 20;
UPZ I 41 [TM 3432] l. 4-6; UPZ I 42 [TM 3433] l. 3-5. For the visits of the Ptolemaic rulers in the χώρα and the
possibility of submitting petitions on these occasions, see CLARYSSE, ‘The Ptolemies visiting the Egyptian chora’;
WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 9.
Serapeion: they were personally presented to the rulers through a special window
(θυρίς) at the Serapeion and their submission was combined with an audience.366
- Some documents refer to petitioners travelling all the way to Alexandria in order
to submit ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα to the sovereign and other central
authorities.367
- Some official notes concerning ὑπομνήματα refer to information that was not
included in the ὑπομνήματα themselves but was orally communicated (φημί) to the
addressee by the interested party.368
- In the unpublished mḳmḳ P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8448 ined. [TM 873609], a petition
about a physical assault, the petitioner explains that he was unable to come to the
addressee immediately after he was beaten, because he was in such a poor
condition.
Eight Greek petitions state that an associate is sent to submit the ἔντευξις or
ὑπόμνημα in question on the petitioners’ behalf.369 These documents do not seem to
contradict the above-described hypothesis, however; rather, they are the
exceptions that prove the rule.370 If it would have been common to submit ἐντεύξεις
and ὑπομνήματα through intermediaries, there would have been no need to refer to
these intermediaries, let alone in petitions, which are normally concise and to the
point. Moreover, six of these petitions explicitly state why the petitioners cannot
come themselves: they are still recovering from a physical assault,371 they are sick,372
they are old and weak,373 they are in service of the gods and unable to leave the
temple,374 or they are imprisoned.375 The petitioners seem to excuse themselves in
this way. It is also important to note that these documents were never entrusted to
random messengers, but only to close associates, whose relation to the petitioner is
usually specified.
366
Cf. OTTO, ‘Das Audienzfenster im Serapeum bei Memphis’; WILCKEN in UPZ I, p. 63-65, 151, 167, 174, 177, 244,
249-250, 271-272.
367
P. Lond. VII 2188 [TM 251] l. 253-254; P. Med. Bar. inv. 3 Ro [TM 56433] l. 21-23; P. Ryl. Gr. IV 563 [TM 2419] l. 2-
3; P. Tarich. 1 [TM 316241] l. 11-12; P. Tarich. 3 [TM 316243] l. 18-19; P. Tebt. III 790 [TM 5376] l. 12-14; SB XVI
12721 [TM 4149] col. i l. 16-17; UPZ I 72 [TM 3463] l. 19-23. Cf. also UPZ I 113 [TM 3505] l. 6-10.
368
P. Cairo Zen. II 59261 [TM 905] in the margin; P. Cairo Zen. II 59368 [TM 1011] l. 8-11; P. Cairo Zen. III 59489
[TM 1127] Vo. See BICKERMANN (‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 171) for these communications.
369
BGU VIII 1847 [TM 4926]; I. Prose 42 l. 9-44 [TM 6605] = I. Prose 43 l. 8-42 [TM 8805] = I. Prose 44 l. 8-37 [TM
7232]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 [TM 1083]; P. Enteux. 22 [TM 3297]; P. Enteux. 33 [TM 3308]; P. Enteux. 81 [TM 3356];
P. Tebt. III 770 [TM 5363]; P. Yale IV 147 [TM 873587].
370
Similar arguments have been advanced by BICKERMANN (‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 157),
COLLOMP (Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 115) and GUERAUD (ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxxi), with
regard to individual documents.
371
P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 [TM 1083]; P. Enteux. 81 [TM 3356]. For the second example, see GUÉRAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p.
197.
372
P. Enteux. 33 [TM 3308].
373
P. Enteux. 22 [TM 3297].
374
I. Prose 42 l. 9-44 [TM 6605] = I. Prose 43 l. 8-42 [TM 8805] = I. Prose 44 l. 8-37 [TM 7232]. Cf. FISCHER-BOVET, ‘Un
aspect des conséquences des réformes de l’armée lagide’, p. 159.
375
BGU VIII 1847 [TM 4926].
2.2. Motivation
The examination above has confirmed that there is ample evidence that ἐντεύξεις,
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ were, as a rule, presented to their addressees in person,
although their delivery could exceptionally be entrusted to close associates. Some
people even travelled all the way to Alexandria in order to submit documents to the
authorities, which must have been a time-consuming and costly affair. All of this
raises an important second question: what was the rationale behind this special
submission procedure?
First of all, personally submitting a document must have been the safest way to
ascertain that a document actually reached its destination. Most ἐντεύξεις,
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ are communications with considerable importance, the
submission of which often had legal implications: petitions, declarations of
property, offers for immovables and concessions auctioned by the state, etcetera.
Evidently, it was important that these documents reached their destination safely.
The fact that petitioners who were exceptionally unable to approach the authorities
themselves only entrusted their petitions to close associates is illustrative.
Second, it may have been more polite to present a message in person than to
transmit it through a third party. Most ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ are
addressed to people of high standing, and many of them are petitions, which ask for
a favour. Why would the authorities take the trouble of granting these favours, if
the petitioners did not even take the trouble to come over themselves? The
authorities may have expected petitions to be presented in person. An interesting
parallel for this can be found in 19th century petitioning etiquette: according to the
Belgian petitioning manual published by LÉOPOLD in 1844, a petition “ne doit point
être envoyée par la poste, à moins qu’il n’y ait impossibilité de faire autrement”.376
Third, the personal submission of these documents may have been an opportunity
for direct oral communications between the addressee and the interested party. 377
The usual conciseness of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ seems to support this
idea: more detailed information and courtesies could be added orally during
submission. In rare cases, traces of these oral communications can be found in the
sources: as already mentioned above, certain documents from the katochoi archive
376
LEOPOLD, Le pétitionnaire belge, p. 18.
377
BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, passim; DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 329-330.
According to BICKERMANN (‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 168-172), the meaning of the word
ὑπόμνημα is closely linked to this oral dimension: he argues that ὑπομνήματα can be understood as “reminders”
that record essentially oral communications. A similar argument might be advanced for mḳmḳ. But in fact there
seems to be little reason to limit the meaning of these words to “reminders of oral communications” instead of
“reminders” in a broader sense. The funerary inscriptions from Asia Minor which are called ὑπόμνημα and are
mentioned by BICKERMANN (‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 168), for example, have little to do
with oral communication.
bear witness to audiences between petitioners and the sovereign that took place at
a special window at the Serapeion, and a couple of official notes concerning
ὑπομνήματα contain information that was not included in the ὑπομνήματα
themselves but was orally communicated by the submitters. Further direct evidence
is lacking, however, and it is therefore not clear how common and how extensive
these oral exchanges were. The fact that some petitioners explicitly ask the
addressee to summon them for a personal hearing suggests that hearings were no
standard procedure.378 P. Cairo Zen. III 59493 [TM 1131] shows that audiences could
also be denied: in this ὑπόμνημα, Pemenasis complains that Zenon’s doorkeeper
prevents him from personally approaching Zenon in order to discuss his situation;
Pemenasis must have delivered this ὑπόμνημα at Zenon’s house, but was clearly not
able to speak to Zenon. Moreover, the number of documents submitted to certain
authorities could be considerable: the strategos of the Arsinoite nome, for instance,
is known to have received more than 20 ἔντευξις petitions in a single day.379 It is
hard to imagine that all of these petitioners were granted extensive hearings.
Fourth and last, several sources suggest that the authorities did generally not take
the trouble to pass on petitions to other levels of the administration themselves. 380
After the initial addressee of a petition had added an order or question for another
authority to the document, the responsibility of bringing this message to the other
authority generally appears to have rested with the petitioner. This second
addressee could in his turn pass on the case to yet another party, and so on.
Presumably, the petitioners each time had to wait at the office until their petition
was returned to them. Sometimes, this could result in long and cumbersome
procedures in which many different authorities had to be approached. UPZ I 14 [TM
3405] offers a notorious example of the efforts and paperwork that could be
involved in this process. By letting the petitioners run their own errands, the state
saved itself great costs and trouble. At the same time, this way of proceeding
allowed the petitioners to stay informed about the latest developments regarding
their affairs.
The above-described observations do not provide a comprehensive explanation for

the special submission procedure of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ, however.
There may have been plenty of different reasons why people chose to write an
ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα or mḳmḳ (and personally submit this message) instead of
sending a letter, many of which may be lost to the modern reader.
378
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59626 [TM 1257]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 378 [TM 3075]; P. Lond. VII 1954 [TM 1517]; P. Lond. VII 2039
[TM 1601]; P. Petrie III 29 c [TM 7413]; P. Petrie III 29 e [TM 7415]; P. Petrie III 29 g [TM 7417]; P. Petrie III 29 h
[TM 7418]; P. Tarich. 1 [TM 316241]; P. Tarich. 2 [TM 316242]. Four of these petitions come from prisoners,
however: again, these cases might be linked to the inability of prisoners to submit their documents themselves.
379
GUÉRAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxxvi-xxxvii.
380
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 177-179; DUTTENHÖFER in introduction to P.
Yale IV 138-152 (forthcoming); GUÉRAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxxix-xl; WILCKEN in UPZ I, p. 141-142, 151, 167. See also P.
Tarich. 1 [TM 316241] l. 11-19; P. Tarich. 3 [TM 316243] l. 4-10; SB XVIII 13093 [TM 2520] l. 11-14.
3. THE SUBMISSION OF ROYAL ἐντεύξεις TO THE STRATEGOS AND

CHREMATISTAI
Almost one third of all Ptolemaic petitions (269 out of 906 texts) are addressed to
the king or queen. The basic characteristics of these so-called “royal ἐντεύξεις”
have already been surveyed in chapter I, but in this section the submission and
handling of these documents is further examined. Some of these petitions are
known to have reached the rulers themselves, but there are clear indications that
several of them were submitted to the strategos or chrematistai instead.381 These
petitions are nominally addressed to the rulers and conventionally ask them to
issue an order or delegate the petition to the strategos or chrematistai, 382 but were
in reality directly submitted to these government agents and processed by them,
without ever passing through royal hands. Some of these documents are explicitly
referred to as ἐντεύξεις “in the name of the king” (εἰς τὸ τοῦ βασιλέως ὄνομα),
stressing that they are only addressed to the sovereign in name, not in practice.383 In
what follows, the available evidence for these different procedures and their
context are reviewed.
381
In his edition of P. Lond. VII 2039 [TM 1601], SKEAT argues that this royal ἔντευξις was probably submitted to
Zenon, in a similar fashion as the royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the strategos and chrematistai. According to
SKEAT, this can explain why the petition appears among Zenon’s papers, without being accompanied by an
official communication delegating the case to Zenon. But in fact there is a much more straightforward reason
for the appearance of the ἔντευξις in Zenon’s archive: the petition concerns a dispute about some land in which
Zenon was indirectly involved (cf. l. 9-10: φά̣[μεν]ο̣ς παρὰ Ζήνωνος ἔχ̣ε̣ι̣[ν] τὸν τόπον ἅπαν). All in all, SKEAT’s
argument does not seem convincing. COLLOMP (Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 144-
145, 163-166) already discussed the lack of evidence for the direct submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the dioiketes.
For the possible submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the superintendent of the chrematistai, see below, p. 229 note
407.
382
For the request formulas regarding these orders and this delegation, see COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie
et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 103-115; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 18-19; GUÉRAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxxii-
xxxvi. Royal orders in ἐντεύξεις are usually designated with the verb προστάσσω, but in ten exceptional cases
with συντάσσω, which is normally used for orders issued by other authorities: I. Prose 22 l. 19-42 [TM 6331], P.
Cairo Zen. IV 59618 [TM 1250], P. Enteux. 3 [TM 3281], P. Enteux. 18 [TM 3295], P. Enteux. 49 [TM 3324], P. Sorb.
III 128 [TM 121875], PSI IV 399 [TM 2082], SB VI 9302 [TM 6212], SB XVIII 13119 [TM 2527] and UPZ I 6 [TM 3397].
In the lacunae of P. Alex. p. 18 no. 559 [TM 5017], P. Cairo Zen. III 59460 [TM 1099], P. Hibeh II 201 l. 1-10 [TM
5185], P. Hibeh II 202 l. 1-6 [TM 5186] and P. Hibeh II 239 [TM 5199], [προστάξαι] is preferable to the editors’
reading [συντάξαι]. See BL 4 for P. Hibeh II 201 l. 1-10 [TM 5185] and P. Hibeh II 202 l. 1-6 [TM 5186].
383
This expression can be found in six papyri: P. Hal. 9 Vo [TM 78263] l. 1-2; P. Petrie III 28 a [TM 7406] l. 3; P.
Petrie III 29 d [TM 7414] l. 3; P. Petrie Kleon 85 [TM 7510] l. 2; P. Tebt. III 815 [TM 7752] fr. 10 col. i l. 4-5; SB XVIII
13256 [TM 2541] l. 3-4. Cf. SEMEKA, Ptolemäisches Prozessrecht, p. 188.
3.1. Royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the strategos
Almost half of the preserved royal ἐντεύξεις contain (traces of) subscriptions or
other notes added at the office of the strategos, without any indication that these
ἐντεύξεις were first forwarded to the strategos by the king. Formally, these
petitions ask the king to issue an order or delegate the petition to the strategos, but
in practice they were submitted to the strategos without passing through royal
hands.384 The large majority of these documents come from the closely related
archives of the petitions from Magdola (222 - 218 BC; 95 texts),385 Glaukos the
policeman (226 - 218 BC; 18 texts),386 and the epistates of Arsinoe (222 - 217 BC; 6
texts).387 All of them were submitted to the strategos of the Arsinoite nome. 388 P.
Texas inv. 1 [TM 873600], another example from 220 BC which seems closely related
to the petitions from the above-mentioned archives, was also submitted to the
strategos of the Arsinoites. Three final examples date from ca. 250 - 240 BC and were
384
BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht, p. 14-17; COLLOMP, Recherches sur la
chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 145-147; GUÉRAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxxi-xxxvi; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der
Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 10.
385
P. Enteux. 2 [TM 3280]; P. Enteux. 3 [TM 3281]; P. Enteux. 6 [TM 3283]; P. Enteux. 7 [TM 3284]; P. Enteux. 8 [TM
Enteux. 110 [TM 3362]; P. Enteux. 111 [TM 3361]; P. Enteux. 112 [TM 3360]; P. Enteux. 113 [TM 3359]; SB XVIII
13312 [TM 2548].
386
P. Sorb. III 103 [TM 121855]; P. Sorb. III 104 [TM 121857]; P. Sorb. III 105 [TM 2600]; P. Sorb. III 106 [TM 2605]; P.
Sorb. III 107 [TM 121858]; P. Sorb. III 108 [TM 2603]; P. Sorb. III 109 [TM 2601]; P. Sorb. III 110 [TM 2602]; P. Sorb.
III 111 [TM 2604]; P. Sorb. III 112 [TM 121859]; P. Sorb. III 113 [TM 121860]; P. Sorb. III 114 [TM 121861]; P. Sorb. III
115 [TM 121862]; P. Sorb. III 116 [TM 121863]; P. Sorb. III 126 [TM 121873]; P. Sorb. III 127 [TM 121874]; P. Sorb. III
128 [TM 121875]; P. Vindob. Barbara inv. 34 [TM 47288].
387
P. Enteux. 4 [TM 3282]; P. Enteux. 25 [TM 3300]; P. Enteux. 80 [TM 3355]; P. Enteux. 97 [TM 3375]; P. Enteux.
100 [TM 3372]; P. Enteux. 101 [TM 3371].
388
P. Enteux. 63 [TM 3338], P. Enteux. 94 [TM 3378], P. Enteux. 104 [TM 3368], P. Enteux. 105 [TM 3367], P. Sorb.
III 119 [TM 121866] and P. Sorb. III 125 [TM 121872] have not preserved any traces of notes added at the office of
the strategos, but since they come from the same archives, they were probably processed in the same way.
submitted to the strategos of the Oxyrhynchite nome. 389 All of these documents date
from the 3rd century BC; P. Enteux. 80 [TM 3355], from 217 BC, is the latest example.
Of all the ἐντεύξεις from this early period asking the king to pass on the case to the
strategos, not a single one is certain to have been presented to the king; possibly, all
of these documents were submitted directly to the strategos.390
The wealth of evidence for the submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the strategos during
the period up till 217 BC stands in stark contrast to the complete lack of evidence
for this practice thereafter.391 Not a single royal ἔντευξις postdating 217 BC is
certain to have been submitted directly to the strategos, whereas a couple of royal
ἐντεύξεις from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC with requests to pass on the case to the
strategos are known to have been actually presented to the rulers and transmitted
by them to the strategos (see below). The editor of P. Münch. III 51 [TM 5250], an
ἔντευξις from 135 - 134 BC addressed to Ptolemaios VIII, Kleopatra II and Kleopatra
III and asking them to issue an order to the strategos, argues that this document
may have been submitted directly to the strategos, since on top of the petition (l. 1-
2) an order for summons that was probably addressed by the strategos to the village
epistates can be found. But the bottom of this petition is lost and may have
contained an earlier order by the rulers to the strategos. The unusual place of the
order for summons in P. Münch. III 51 [TM 5250], above the petition instead of
below, suggests that the space below the petition may already have been taken by
another official communication. Moreover, there are 1st century BC parallels for
ἐντεύξεις that have preserved both an order by the sovereign to the strategos and a
consecutive order by the strategos to the epistates.392 All in all, P. Münch. III 51 [TM
5250] does not offer firm evidence that royal ἐντεύξεις were still submitted directly
to the strategos during the 2nd century BC.
During the entire Ptolemaic period, the strategos also received ὑπόμνημα petitions
in his own name.393 Here too, a remarkable break between the documents from the
389
P. Hibeh II 201 l. 1-10 [TM 5185]; P. Hibeh II 202 l. 1-6 [TM 5186]; P. Hibeh II 235 [TM 5195].
390
Royal ἐντεύξεις from this period with requests to pass on the case to the strategos but without clear traces of
notes added at his office: BGU X 1903 [TM 8299]; P. Alex. p. 18 no. 559 [TM 5017]; P. Cairo Zen. III 59351 [TM 994];
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59620 [TM 1252]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59621 [TM 1253]; P. Enteux. 1 [TM 3279]; P. Enteux. 12 [TM
3289]; P. Enteux. 94 [TM 3378]; P. Enteux. 106 [TM 3366]; P. Heid. Gr. VI 376 [TM 3073]; P. Hibeh II 237 [TM 5197];
P. Mich. Zen. 71 [TM 1970]; P. Petrie III 22 a [TM 7395]; P. TCD Pap. Gr. env. 86/87 Ro [TM 8832]; P. Yale I 46 (1)
[TM 5538]; P. Yale I 46 (2) [TM 5538]; SB XX 15001 [TM 8123]; SB XXII 15237 [TM 1850]. For P. Enteux. 12 [TM
3289], which has been interpreted as an ἔντευξις actually transmitted to the strategos by the king in early
scholarship, see the doubts raised by GUÉRAUD (ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxxv-xxxvi, 33).
391
GROTKAMP (Rechtsschutz im hellenistischen Ägypten, p. 49, 55, 70) seems to overlook this chronological evolution.
392
8805]; I. Prose 44 l. 8-37 [TM 7232].
393
Non-royal ἐντεύξεις to the strategos are not preserved; possibly they did not exist. COLLOMP (Recherches sur la
chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 147-150) wondered whether the addressee of the non-royal ἔντευξις
PSI IV 402 [TM 2085] and the non-royal ἔντευξις mentioned in PSI IV 419 [TM 2102] l. 4, named Philiskos, might
be a strategos, but this individual was later identified as oikonomos: PESTMAN et al., A guide to the Zenon archive, p.
435. There are also three ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function to the strategos: one from 242 BC (P. Petrie
III 29 a l. 10-17 [TM 7411]) and two from the 1st century BC (BGU VIII 1861 [TM 4940] and BGU XVIII 2732 l. 10-24
[TM 69806]). They seem less relevant in this context, however.
3rd century BC and 2nd - 1st centuries BC can be observed.394 First, the ὑπόμνημα
petitions to the strategos from the 2nd - 1st century BC greatly outnumber those from
the 3rd century BC: 143 texts versus 11.395 Second, most 2nd and 1st century BC
examples are primary petitions that initiate procedures, whereas the 3rd century BC
examples generally appear to be secondary petitions concerning pending
procedures. Nine of the 3rd century BC examples (dating from 244 - 222 BC, 222 - 221
BC and 222 - 205 BC) certainly concern procedures that were already initiated
through earlier petitions.396 In four cases, these earlier petitions are identified as
royal ἐντεύξεις, directly submitted to the strategos.397 The tenth 3rd century BC
example, P. Petrie III 28 e Ro [TM 7410] (224 - 218 BC), is too fragmentary to be safely
identified as a primary or secondary petition. The last example, SB XXIV 16285 [TM
8808], certainly initiates a procedure, like most 2nd and 1st century BC ὑπομνήματα
to the strategos, but is also the latest 3rd century BC example, dating from 202 BC.
The earliest ὑπόμνημα to the strategos from the 2nd century BC, SB XXIV 16295 [TM
8810] (199 BC), concerns a pending procedure, but specifies that this procedure was
initiated by an earlier ὑπόμνημα to the strategos; this confirms that the ὑπόμνημα
format was also used for primary petitions to the strategos at this time. To
conclude, during most of the 3rd century BC the ὑπόμνημα format only appears to
have been used for secondary petitions to the strategos (and messages without
petitioning function: see above, note 393); from at least 202 BC onwards, primary
petitions to the strategos are also formatted as ὑπομνήματα in his own name.
3.2. Royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the chrematistai
Besides individual state officials like the strategos, several courts were engaged in
the administration of justice in Ptolemaic Egypt. The most important courts were
those of the chrematistai, the direct judicial representatives of the Ptolemaic
sovereign.398 Initially, chrematistai only appear to have been appointed and sent
394
Cf. BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht, p. 31; COLLOMP, Recherches sur la
chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 150-159; DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’,
p. 68.
395
In two cases, it is not clear whether the document belongs to the 3rd or 2nd century BC: BGU VI 1470 Ro l. 1-6
[TM 61247] (3rd / 2nd century BC) and P. Köln Gr. XIII 521 [TM 219337] (ca. 225 - 150 BC).
396
P. Petrie III 28 a [TM 7406] (222 - 221 BC); P. Petrie III 29 b [TM 7412] (244 - 222 BC); P. Petrie III 29 c [TM 7413]
(244 - 222 BC); P. Petrie III 29 d [TM 7414] (244 - 222 BC); P. Petrie III 29 e [TM 7415] (244 - 222 BC); P. Petrie III 29 f
[TM 7416] (244 - 222 BC); P. Petrie III 29 g [TM 7417] (244 - 222 BC); P. Petrie III 29 h [TM 7418] (244 - 222 BC); P.
Petrie III 30 [TM 7420] (222 - 205 BC).
397
Cf. P. Petrie III 28 a [TM 7406] l. 3; P. Petrie III 29 c [TM 7413] l. 4; P. Petrie III 29 d [TM 7414] l. 3-4; P. Petrie III
29 e [TM 7415] l. 6.
398
WOLFF’s work on the chrematistai court (Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 64-89; ‘Organisation der
Rechtspflege und Rechtskontrolle’, p. 23-31) is still fundamental. For more recent discussions, see ARMONI in P.
Tarich., p. 7-10; GROTKAMP, Rechtsschutz im hellenistischen Ägypten, p. 62-77 (adopting a more critical stance
towards the traditional connection between the chrematistai and the sovereign). For the royal ordinance from
over by the king on an irregular and temporary basis, in order to judge particular
cases. Later, permanent chambers of chrematistai were established. Probably, the
first permanent chrematistai court resided in Alexandria, and additional chambers
were established throughout the χώρα some time thereafter. Towards the turn of
the 3rd / 2nd century BC, this process of institutionalisation appears to have been
completed.399
Judicial proceedings before the chrematistai were always initiated through

petitions, unlike procedures before other courts. This difference between the
chrematistai and other courts is not coincidental. WOLFF explains that the Ptolemaic
judiciary is characterised by a bipartite structure.400 On the one hand, there is the
judicial activity emanating from the sovereign and his agents: most importantly the
chrematistai courts, but also individual state officials. The latter exercise a semi-
judicial activity on the basis of their executive powers, the so-called
“Beamtenjustiz”. On the other hand, there is the judicial activity exercised by a set
of more autonomous courts tolerated by the sovereign: the courts of the Greek
poleis and the so-called “Eigengerichte” active in the χώρα, most importantly the
enchoric dikasterion, laokritai and koinodikion courts. Procedures before
authorities of the first group (the sovereign and his agents, including the
chrematistai) are generally initiated through petitions.
Most chrematistai lawsuits appear to have been initiated through royal ἐντεύξεις in
which petitioners ask the sovereign to pass on their case to the chrematistai. Ten
clear examples of such ἐντεύξεις are preserved.401 One of the earliest examples, P.
Col. Zen. II 83 [TM 1796] (245 - 244 BC), asks the king to delegate the relevant case
“to chrematistai” (ἐπὶ χρηματιστάς), without definite article or any further
identification. All other examples, as far as they are preserved, ask the rulers to
delegate the case “to the chrematistai” (ἐπὶ / εἰς τοὺς (...) χρηματιστάς or τοῖς (...)
χρηματισταῖς), with definite article and in most cases followed by the name of their
eisagogeus (ὧν εἰσαγωγεὺς ὁ δεῖνα). WOLFF explains that the petitioner of P. Col.
Zen. II 83 [TM 1796] wants the king to appoint a board of chrematistai who can come
over to the Arsinoites in order to judge his case, whereas the other petitions seek to
initiate proceedings before chrematistai courts which are already present because
they have already been appointed and sent over by the sovereign earlier on (before
118 BC concerning the jurisdiction of the chrematistai and laokritai, see recently GROTKAMP, Rechtsschutz im
hellenistischen Ägypten, p. 116-123; HAUBEN, ‘The Ptolemaic Ordinance of 118 BC’.
399
For the chronology of this evolution, see BASTIANINI, ‘Un abbozzo di enteuxis’, p. 147-150; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen
der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 73, 167-170; WOLFF, ‘Organisation der Rechtspflege und Rechtskontrolle’, p. 26-27.
400
Cf. WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 83; WOLFF, ‘Organisation der Rechtspflege und
Rechtskontrolle’, p. 4-32. A very clear comparison between WOLFF’s ideas on the structure of the Ptolemaic
judiciary and those of SEIDL (Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte) can be found in MODRZEJEWSKI, Droit et justice dans le
monde grec et hellénistique, p. 39-42.
401
P. Athen. 5 [TM 77951]; P. Cairo Zen. IV 59619 [TM 1251]; P. Col. Zen. II 83 [TM 1796]; P. Erasm. I 1 [TM 5048]; P.
Fay. 11 [TM 8084]; P. Fay. 12 [TM 8334]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 b [TM 3638]; SB VI 9065
[TM 5721]; SB XXII 15558 [TM 8350]. BGU X 1902 [TM 8298] and SB VI 9556 col. I [TM 5787] are more
fragmentary, but probably ask the king to initiate proceedings before the chrematistai as well.
the institutionalisation of the courts) or are permanently based in a certain region

(after the institutionalisation). 402 P. Col. Zen. II 83 [TM 1796] must have been
submitted to the king himself, since he still had to appoint chrematistai to judge the
case. The other petitions, royal ἐντεύξεις that ask the sovereign to pass on the case
to specific chrematistai chambers, generally appear to have been submitted directly
to these chrematistai. Not a single one of these ἐντεύξεις is known to have passed
through royal hands, whereas there is ample evidence that they could be presented
directly to the chrematistai.403 One piece of evidence dates from the 3rd century BC:
SB XVIII 13256 [TM 2541] (268 - 246 / 230 - 221 BC).404 This petition (l. 3-4) refers to
an earlier petition that was nominally addressed to the king but in practice
submitted directly to the Alexandrine chrematistai chamber, which already appears
to have been institutionalised at this period. Further, there are several explicit
references from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC to the direct submission of ἐντεύξεις to
chrematistai courts.405
Some chrematistai lawsuits were initiated through ὑπομνήματα addressed to high-

ranking officials instead of ἐντεύξεις addressed to the sovereign.406 First, a couple of
documents from the archive of the taricheutai from Tanis (189 - 184 BC) refer to
chrematistai proceedings initiated through ὑπομνήματα to the central
superintendent of the chrematistai (ὁ πρὸς τῆι ἐπιμελείαι τῶν χρηματιστῶν).407
Second, chrematistai proceedings may also have been initiated by submitting
ὑπομνήματα to the dioiketes: in P. Mich. XVIII 778 [TM 8772], a ὑπόμνημα petition
to the dioiketes from ca. 193 - 192 BC, the petitioner asks the dioiketes to either pass
on his case to the chrematistai or let the accused be brought to the dioiketes
402
WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 70-72. P. Frankf. 7 Ro col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 13 [TM 5101] (217 -
204 BC) offers an interesting parallel. This petition refers to an earlier royal ἐντευξις in which the king was
asked to appoint chrematistai (col. i l. 18: κα]θίσαι μοι χρηματισ[τάς]). Cf. WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd
edition, p. 70-71.
403
Cf. ARMONI in P. Tarich., p. 9; BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht, p. 13-15, 40-45,
52-53; KÄPPEL, ‘Ein Asebieverfahren vor den Chrematisten?’, p. 214; WILCKEN in UPZ II, p. 113-114; WOLFF, Das
Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 70-71. GROTKAMP (Rechtsschutz im hellenistischen Ägypten, p. 63-70) seems to
suggest that these ἐντεύξεις were also processed by the strategos, but this is a misunderstanding.
404
According to BERNEKER (Die Sondergerichtsbarkeit im griechischen Recht Ägyptens, p. 166) and WOLFF (Das
Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 71 note 31), P. Cairo Zen. IV 59619 [TM 1251] (263 - 229 BC) was also
submitted directly to the chrematistai, because it changes from singular (l. 5-6: δέομαι οὖν] σου, βασιλεῦ) to
plural (l. 7-8: [ -ca.?- ] ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς κριθῶ), but this example seems less certain.
405
BGU VI 1249 [TM 4540] l. 5-6 (136 BC); BGU VIII 1845 [TM 4924] l. 9-11 (50-49 BC); P. Erbstreit 17 [TM 154] l. 9-
10 = P. Erbstreit 18 [TM 113817] l. 16-17 (133 BC); P. Tor. Choach. 9 [TM 3572] l. 9-11 (about the submission of the
royal ἐντευξις P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571] = P. Tor. Choach. 8 b [TM 3638] in 127 BC); SB XXVIII 16851 [TM
112672] l. 3-4 (154 - 143 BC); UPZ I 118 [TM 3510], l. 8.
406
One fragmentary petition asking to initiate proceedings before the chrematistai might be either a royal
ἔντευξις or a ὑπόμνημα to a high-ranking official: P. Tebt. III 783 [TM 7853] (ca. 175 - 125 BC).
407
P. Tarich. 1 [TM 316241] l. 2-8, 11-19; P. Tarich. 3 [TM 316243] l. 4-10, 18-19; P. Tarich. 7 [TM 316249] l. 7-11. Cf.
ARMONI, ‘Enteuxis mit Erwähnung der Verpfändung eines ἀμπελών, p. 224; ARMONI in P. Tarich., p. 8-10.
According to ARMONI, P. Heid. Gr. inv. 5017 Vo [TM 128479] fr. c l. 2-4 suggests that these petitions to the
superintendent of the chrematistai could alternatively be styled as royal ἐντευξεις as well, but this seems
uncertain. For the possible merging of this office with that of archidikastes in the middle of the 2nd century BC,
see CLAYTOR, ‘P. Fordham inv. 5’.
himself.408 Third, three fragmentary ὑπομνήματα ask unknown officials to initiate a

case before the chrematistai: P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM 5038] (177 BC), P. Hels. I 1 [TM
5138] (194 - 180 BC) and P. Tarich. 5 g col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18 [TM 316246] (189 BC?).
Possibly, these petitions were also addressed to the superintendent of the
chrematistai or dioiketes.409 It is not clear why some petitioners chose to submit a
royal ἔντευξις (nominally addressed to the sovereign) to the chrematistai and
others a ὑπόμνημα to a state official. Possibly, the second procedure could speed up
certain cases.410
The chrematistai also received ὑπομνήματα in their own name: 11 examples have
been preserved, one of which dates from the 3rd century BC and the others from the
2nd century BC.411 Just like the 3rd century BC ὑπομνήμα petitions to the strategos,
however, all of them seem to concern procedures that were already initiated
through earlier petitions.412 Primary petitions submitted to the chrematistai that
seek to initiate procedures always appear to be formatted as royal ἐντεύξεις. SB VI
9556 [TM 5787] (245 BC) offers a fine illustration: the first column of this papyrus
contains an ἔντευξις to the sovereign, which is very fragmentary but most probably
asks the king to initiate proceedings before a chamber of chrematistai that was sent
to the Arsinoite nome; the second column of the papyrus contains a ὑπόμνημα
petition addressed to the chrematistai themselves about the lawsuit initiated by the
ἔντευξις in col. i (l. 3-4: περὶ τῆς [ἐ]ντεύξεως̣ ἧς ἐνέβαλον κατὰ [Δη]μητρίου).
Presumably, both the ἔντευξις recorded in col. i and the ὑπόμνημα recorded in col.
ii were in reality submitted directly to the chrematistai, but the first petition was
nominally addressed to the king because it initiated the procedure.
408
Possibly, the ὑπόμνημα to the dioiketes referred to in P. Tarich. 8 [TM 316250] l. 5-6 (185 - 184 BC) also seeked
to initiate proceedings before the chrematistai: cf. ARMONI in P. Tarich., p. 9-10, 81-82. WOLFF (Das Justizwesen der
Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 77) also refers to a couple of interesting documents with regard to the collaboration
between the dioiketes and chrematistai.
409
P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138] was interpreted as a royal ἔντευξις in its editio princeps, but later SCHWENDNER (Literary
and non-literary papyri from the University of Michigan collection, p. 106 note 10) noted that the document is
explicitly designated as ὑπόμνημα in l. 28. Cf. also KALTSAS, ‘Ein Streit zwischen Epergoi in P.Hels. 1’. P. Tarich. 5 g
col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18 [TM 316246] might possibly be the ὑπόμνημα to the superintendent of the chrematistai
referred to in P. Tarich. 1 [TM 316241] l. 11-19. For speculations about the addressee of P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM
5038], see KÄPPEL, ‘Ein Asebieverfahren vor den Chrematisten?’, p. 219.
410
Cf. ARMONI in P. Tarich., p. 10; KALTSAS, ‘Ein Streit zwischen Epergoi in P.Hels. 1’, p. 214.
411
P. Gen. III 126 l. 21-46 [TM 43084]; P. Merton II 59 l. 11-28 [TM 5240]; P. Tarich. 1 [TM 316241]; P. Tarich. 4 a
[TM 316244]; P. Tarich. 4 b [TM 316245]; P. Tarich. 7 [TM 316249]; P. Tarich. 8 [TM 316250]; P. Tarich. 9 a [TM
316251]; P. Tarich. 9 b [TM 316252]; P. Tebt. I 29 [TM 78767]; SB VI 9556 col. ii [TM 5787].
412
Cf. ARMONI in P. Tarich., p. 10.
3.3. Royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the rulers themselves
Although many royal ἐντεύξεις were submitted to and processed by the strategos
and chrematistai without passing through royal hands, the Ptolemaic rulers did not
entirely delegate this duty to these agents. Several sources bear witness to their
personal involvement in the administration of justice and other favours in reaction
to petitions. 413 In this process, the sovereign was assisted by his immediate
secretaries, most importantly the epistolographos and hypomnematographos.414
The clearest examples of royal ἐντεύξεις actually submitted to the rulers are those
preserving royal orders in reaction to the petition: 20 such texts are preserved
(some of which are duplicates); all of them date from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.415
In six cases, the reaction takes the form of a letter; 416 in the remaining cases, the
reaction takes the form of a subscription. Presumably, these replies were generally
written by royal secretaries rather than the rulers themselves: six of the above-
listed petitions ask the sovereign to let the epistolographos or
hypomnematographos write a message or issue an order to some authority, 417 and
one of the royal subscriptions is actually signed by the hypomnematographos.418
Interestingly, 11 of the above-listed petitions specifically ask to pass on the case to
the strategos and have accordingly preserved royal orders to the strategos.419 In
contrast to the 3rd century BC royal ἐντεύξεις with requests to pass on the case to
the strategos, these petitions were really transmitted to the strategos by the
sovereign, as requested by the petitioners.
413
For the judicial activity of the Ptolemaic sovereign, see in particular GROTKAMP, Rechtsschutz im hellenistischen
Ägypten, p. 49-56; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 5-18, with references to earlier literature.
414
The most extensive study about these two offices was written by COLLOMP (Recherches sur la chancellerie et la
diplomatique des Lagides, in particular p. 9-49, 167-202), but is obsolete. For a more recent assessment of the
offices and references to other literature, see HUß, Die Verwaltung des ptolemaeiischen Reichs, p. 40-41.
415
8160]; I. Prose 33 [TM 7228] = I. Prose 34 [TM 7229]; I. Prose 37 l. 11-52 [TM 7237]; I. Prose 38 l. 2-28 [TM 7230]; I.
Prose 39 l. 2-35 [TM 7231]; I. Prose 42 l. 9-44 [TM 6605] = I. Prose 43 l. 8-42 [TM 8805] = I. Prose 44 l. 8-37 [TM
7232]; P. Lips. II 124 l. 1-10 [TM 78440]; P. Lips. II 124 l. 21-62 [TM 78440]; P. Meyer 1 [TM 5901]; P. Tebt. I 43 [TM
3679]; UPZ I 14 l. 5-34 [TM 3405]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411]; UPZ I 106 l. 9-22 [TM 3498] = UPZ I 107 l. 10-26 [TM 3499] =
UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500].
416
I. Prose 22 [TM 6331] l. 1-18; I. Prose 24 l. 39-50 [TM 6403]; I. Prose 24 l. 53-66 [TM 6403]; UPZ I 106 [TM 3498] l.
1-8 = UPZ I 107 [TM 3499] l. 1-9 = UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500] l. 4-7. In the last three examples, the reaction takes
the form of a circular letter (ἐντολή) addressed to multiple authorities.
417
I. Prose 22 l. 19-42 [TM 6331]; I. Prose 32 l. 7-47 [TM 8160]; I. Prose 39 l. 2-35 [TM 7231]; UPZ I 106 l. 9-22 [TM
3498]; UPZ I 107 l. 10-26 [TM 3499]; UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500].
418
I. Prose 39 [TM 7231] l. 36.
419
I. Prose 22 l. 19-42 [TM 6331]; I. Prose 24 l. 39-50 [TM 6403]; I. Prose 32 l. 7-47 [TM 8160]; I. Prose 33 [TM 7228] =
I. Prose 34 [TM 7229]; I. Prose 37 l. 11-52 [TM 7237]; I. Prose 38 l. 2-28 [TM 7230]; I. Prose 42 l. 9-44 [TM 6605] = I.
Prose 43 l. 8-42 [TM 8805] = I. Prose 44 l. 8-37 [TM 7232]; P. Tebt. I 43 [TM 3679].
Besides these petitions with preserved royal reaction, various other royal ἐντεύξεις
are known to have been (intended to be) submitted to the rulers themselves:420
- Several 2nd century BC documents, with one exception belonging to the archive of
the katochoi of the Serapeion, refer to petitioners submitting their ἐντεύξεις to the
sovereign during royal visits in the χώρα.421 UPZ I 14 l. 5-34 [TM 3405] and UPZ I 20
[TM 3411] (which have preserved royal reactions: see above) were certainly
presented in this way. Possibly, all other royal ἐντεύξεις from the archive of the
katochoi were (intended to be) submitted to the rulers themselves as well.422
- Several 2nd century BC documents refer to petitioners travelling all the way to
Alexandria in order to submit ἐντεύξεις to the rulers.423
- As discussed above, P. Col. Zen. II 83 [TM 1796] (245 - 244 BC) must have been
submitted to the king himself, because the petition asks him to appoint
chrematistai. P. Frankf. 7 Ro [TM 5101] (217 - 204 BC) col. i l. 18 refers to another
royal ἔντευξις that must have been submitted to the king for this reason.
- I. Prose 19 [TM 5950] (148 BC) and UPZ I 108 l. 21-36 [TM 3500] (99 - 98 BC) ask the
sovereign to let the epistolographos or hypomnematographos write a message or
issue an order to some authority. Several similar petitions with such a request have
preserved a royal reaction (see above); correspondingly, I. Prose 19 [TM 5950] and
UPZ I 108 l. 21-36 [TM 3500] were probably submitted to the sovereign as well.
- As discussed above, the only royal ἐντεύξεις that are known to have been
presented to other authorities than the sovereign are those submitted to the
strategos and chrematistai, and all of these petitions ask the king to pass on the case
to these authorities. Possibly, all royal ἐντεύξεις that make other kinds of requests
(to pass on the case to other authorities than the strategos or chrematistai or to deal
with the case in person) can be interpreted as documents (intended to be)
submitted to the rulers.424
420
Ordinary references to ἐντεύξεις transmitted by the king to state officials have not been taken into account
here, since GUÉRAUD (ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ, p. xxxii-xxxvi) has convincingly argued that references like this do not
necessarily correspond to reality. In earlier literature, such references are still viewed as evidence: see, for
example, BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht, p. 17-18; COLLOMP, Recherches sur la
chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 143-144.
421
SB XVIII 13093 [TM 2520] l. 6-7; UPZ 15 [TM 3406] l. 6-8; UPZ I 41 [TM 3432] l. 4-6; UPZ I 42 [TM 3433] l. 3-5. Cf.
above, p. 220-221.
422
UPZ I 3 [TM 3394] = UPZ I 4 [TM 3395]; UPZ I 6 [TM 3397]; UPZ I 9 [TM 3400]; UPZ I 10 [TM 3401] = UPZ I 11 [TM
3402]; UPZ I 15 [TM 3406] = UPZ I 16 [TM 3407]; UPZ I 18 [TM 3409] = UPZ I 19 [TM 3410]; UPZ I 41 [TM 3432]; UPZ
I 42 [TM 3433]. Cf. WILCKEN in UPZ I, p. 121-122.
423
P. Lond. VII 2188 [TM 251] l. 253-254; P. Med. Bar. inv. 3 Ro [TM 56433] l. 21-23; P. Tebt. III 790 [TM 5376] l. 12-
14; SB XVI 12721 [TM 4149] col. i l. 16-17; UPZ I 72 [TM 3463] l. 19-23. Cf. above, p. 221.
424
P. Cairo Zen. III 59460 [TM 1099]; P. Cairo Zen. V 59832 [TM 1456]; P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Enteux. 61 [TM
3336]; P. Enteux. 68 [TM 3343]; P. Hibeh I 34 [TM 8186]; P. Lond. VII 2039 [TM 1601]; P. Yale I 57 [TM 5541]; PSI IV
383 l. 7-17 [TM 2067]; PSI V 541 [TM 2163]; PSI VIII 976 [TM 2444]; SB I 4309 [TM 7132]; SB XVIII 13256 [TM 2541];
UPZ II 151 [TM 2975]. In P. Cairo Zen. III 59460 [TM 1099], the petitioner asks the king to issue an order to either
the dioiketes or the strategos. This would make little sense if the petition was submitted directly to the
- As discussed above, the submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the strategos is only

attested up till 217 BC. Probably, all royal ἐντεύξεις from later dates that ask the
king to pass on the case to the strategos can be interpreted as documents (intended
to be) submitted to the rulers.425
To conclude, many royal ἐντεύξεις were not only nominally addressed to the
Ptolemaic rulers, but also in reality submitted to them. Numerically, these petitions
are overshadowed by the royal ἐντεύξεις directly submitted to the strategos, but
when comparing these two groups of ἐντεύξεις, the distribution of the
archaeological finds should be kept in mind: the lion’s share of the preserved royal
ἐντεύξεις submitted to the strategos belong to a handful of official archives from
the Arsinoite nome. From Alexandria, by contrast, not a single Ptolemaic archive is
preserved. Presumably, many copies of royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the Ptolemaic
rulers were kept in central archives in the capital, but these archives have gone lost
forever.
3.4. Context
The examinations above have shown that in practice royal ἐντεύξεις were not
always presented to the sovereign, but could also be submitted directly to the
strategos and chrematistai. In contrast to the sovereign and the chrematistai, the
strategos only appears to have received royal ἐντεύξεις during the 3rd century BC:
evidence for the practice is abundant for the period up till 217 BC, but completely
lacking for the period thereafter. All ὑπόμνημα petitions to the strategos up till the
end of the 3rd century BC and all ὑπόμνημα petitions to the chrematistai (from all
periods) appear to be secondary documents, concerning procedures initiated by
earlier petitions. All primary petitions to the strategos up till the late 3rd century BC
and all primary petitions to the chrematistai (from all periods) appear to have been
formatted as royal ἐντεύξεις. The earliest clear example of a primary ὑπόμνημα
petition addressed to the strategos dates from 202 BC. How should this practice of
submitting royal ἐντεύξεις to the strategos and chrematistai and the changing
petitioning procedure in relation to the strategos that seems to have taken place
around the period 217 - 202 BC be understood?
When primary petitions to the chrematistai and the strategos (in the 3rd century BC)
are formatted as royal ἐντεύξεις, the activity of these officials in reaction to these
strategos: cf. WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 10 note 19. For PSI VIII 976 [TM 2444], see
COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, p. 144-145.
425
Three ἐντεύξεις that ask the sovereign to pass on the case to the strategos but have not preserved a reaction
by the sovereign or strategos certainly postdate 217 BC: P. Lond. VII 2188 l. 22-115 [TM 251]; P. Tebt. III 771 (1)
[TM 7849]; P. Tebt. III 771 (2) [TM 341742].
petitions must have some connection with the sovereign. For the chrematistai, this
connection is evident: as discussed above, the chrematistai were originally
appointed and sent over by the king on an irregular and temporary basis in order to
judge particular cases in his name; after their institutionalisation as well, they
remained the direct judicial representatives of the sovereign. For the strategos, this
connection is less straightforward. Throughout the entire Ptolemaic period, the
strategos played a pivotal role in the ordinary judiciary and the petitioning
system.426 Presumably, the early Ptolemaic strategos generally dealt with petitions
actually transmitted to him by the king, and the custom of formatting primary
petitions submitted to the strategos as royal ἐντεύξεις found its origin in this early
practice of delegation.427
The formal evolution of the primary petitions to the strategos at the end of the 3 rd
century BC, from ἐντεύξεις in the king’s name to ὑπομνήματα in his own name, has
been interpreted in different ways. According to COLLOMP, the strategoi originally
functioned as “chancellerie dispersée” of the king and royal ἐντεύξεις were directly
submitted to the strategoi in this capacity; later, the handling of these documents
was centralised to the royal court and the strategoi lost this function, but were
granted the permission to receive and process primary petitions on their own.428
COLLOMP’s views were criticised by BICKERMANN and WOLFF, who argued that in
practice the role of the strategos did not change.429 WOLFF further stressed that the
continued submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the chrematistai during the 2nd and 1st
centuries BC, strangely overlooked by COLLOMP, clearly shows that the Ptolemaic
rulers had no wish to centralise the handling of petitions. BICKERMANN connects the
formal evolution of the primary petitions to the strategos with the evolution of the
ὑπόμνημα: towards the end of the 3rd century BC, the ὑπόμνημα format had become
more fully developed and more suitable for petitions and other formal
communications addressed to the authorities. This explanation also seems
unsatisfying, however, as the ὑπόμνημα format was already used for secondary
petitions to the strategos and primary petitions to other authorities earlier on (see,
for instance, the early ὑπόμνημα petitions discussed in chapter II).430 According to
WOLFF, the evolution must be linked to the waning prestige of the Ptolemaic
monarchy and changing psychological perspective of the people under Ptolemaios
IV and V: “Man hat den Eindruck, als sei der Bevölkerung das Vertrauen in den
König als den großen Schutzherrn, der durch seine Beamten über Recht und Leben
426
Cf. BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht, p. 11-34; SEIDL, Ptolemäische
Rechtsgeschichte, p. 78-80; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 162, 165-170.
427
Cf. BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p. 163-164; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer,
2nd edition, p. 9-10.
428
COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides, passim but in particular p. 141-166.
429
BICKERMANN, ‘Review of P. Collomp’, p. 1244-1245; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 166-170.
See also BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht, p. 16-17, supporting the ideas of
BICKERMANN.
430
WOLFF (Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 167-168) criticised BICKERMANN’s hypothesis on the same
ground.
der Untertanen wachte, verloren gegangen und dem Gefühl gewichen, daß es doch
nur die faktisch erreichbaren Autoritäten seien, von denen man Hilfe erwarten
konnte - eine geistige Umstellung, die vermutlich von den lokalen Machthabern
nicht ungern gesehen und gefördert wurde. Äußerlich hätte sich der Umschwung
darin kundgetan, daß man nunmehr den König auch formell ignorierte und schon
die erste Bitte um Schutz durch den Beamten in der Weise stellte, wie man im 3.
Jahrhundert nur ein bereits eingeleitetes und damit der staatsrechtlichen Theorie
nach erst durch königlichen Befehl in die Hand des Beamten gelangtes Verfahren
vorangetrieben hatte”.431 This third explanation is not convincing either: it is hard
to imagine that the people asked their scribes to change the address of their
petitions to the strategos, because they liked him better than the king, and it seems
equally implausible that the strategoi openly rejected their king by asking to stop
submitting petitions in the sovereign’s name.
All of the above-discussed arguments sound a bit far-fetched. Perhaps the formal
evolution of the primary petitions to the strategos can be interpreted as an ordinary
administrative simplification. As argued above, the early Ptolemaic strategos
probably generally dealt with petitions actually transmitted to him by the king, and
the custom of formatting primary petitions submitted to the strategos as royal
ἐντεύξεις probably found its origin in this early practice of delegation. When more
and more of these petitions were submitted directly to the strategos during the
later 3rd century BC, the custom of formatting them as royal ἐντεύξεις must have
begun to make less and less sense. Towards the end of the 3 rd century BC, the
government may have decided to do away with this obsolete practice and to
establish a clear-cut distinction between petitions submitted to the strategos and
petitions submitted to the sovereign. Petitions to the chrematistai, on the other
hand, continued to be formatted as royal ἐντεύξεις during the 2nd and 1st centuries
BC, because the chrematistai, in contrast to the strategoi, functioned as direct
administrators of the royal jurisdiction: even when they received royal ἐντεύξεις
that had not passed through royal hands, their judicial activity remained
inextricably connected with that of the sovereign.
431
WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 168-169.
Conclusion
The petitions surveyed in this study have shown themselves as an elaborate and
flexible instrument for dealing with disputes and asking the authorities for favours.
All possible authorities were approached by petitioners, from local officials of the
lowest rank to the king and queen in person. A wide variety of disputes and other
topics are brought up in these petitions. Notwithstanding all formulaic expressions,
passed on from generation to generation by scribes, every petition tells its own
story and petitioners were clearly given a fairly free hand in the composition of
their pleas. The requests encountered in these documents are diverse as well.
Generally, Ptolemaic petitions ask the authorities for concrete and direct actions in
favour of the petitioner. Initiating adjudication in the strict sense never appears to
have been the primary purpose of these documents, as already stressed by WOLFF in
his work on the Ptolemaic judiciary. The petitions that initiate proceedings before
the chrematistai form a notable exception.
The Ptolemaic petitioning system constituted a potent framework for interaction

between the people and the authorities. Not only the people benefitted from this
relationship. Hearing and processing petitions allowed the authorities to exercise
control and win trust. In this context, it does not surprise that almost one third of
the Ptolemaic petitions are addressed to the king and queen: by personally
guaranteeing justice and granting favours to their subjects, the Ptolemaic
sovereigns could extend their grip on Egyptian society and legitimise their rule.
Moreover, happy subjects could in their turn fulfil their obligations towards the
authorities: several Ptolemaic petitioners stress that they will be able to do justice
themselves, pay their dues to the state or tend to the cult of the gods and rulers if
their requests are granted. Ptolemaic petitioning, with its personal aspect and the
do ut des principle underlying it, bears a powerful witness to Hellenistic rulership.
Despite the important role of petitioning in Ptolemaic Egypt, no well-articulated

concept of petitioning appears to have existed in this society. This is reflected in the
lack of a general term for petitions. References to these documents in Ptolemaic
papyri designate them according to their format: as ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα or mḳmḳ.
These three text formats were also used to write other kinds of documents,
however. Petitions did not form an isolated group of texts; their nature and
evolution was closely entwined with the nature and evolution of ἐντεύξεις,
ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ in general.
The Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ have two major traits in common.
First, all three formats were mainly used to write formal communications to the
authorities, mostly petitions, but also other messages with ordinary requests or no
238 CONCLUSION
request at all. Second, ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ were, as a rule, delivered to
their addressee in person, in contrast to letters. Apart from these shared
characteristics, the three formats generally served different purposes. During the
earlier 3rd century BC, the function of the ἔντευξις and ὑπόμνημα still overlapped to
some degree: communications addressed to the sovereign were always composed as
ἐντεύξεις, by far the most elaborate format, but communications addressed to other
authorities could be formatted both as ἐντεύξεις and as ὑπομνήματα. In the later
course of the 3rd century BC, this overlap was done away with (see below, change A).
The mḳmḳ served as Demotic counterpart to the ὑπόμνημα.
The use of the ἔντευξις and ὑπόμνημα format underwent several important changes
in the course of the 3rd century BC:
(A) Around the 230’s BC, the use of the ἔντευξις format was restricted to
communications addressed to the sovereign, the non-royal ἔντευξις disappeared,
and the ὑπόμνημα became the main format for petitions and other communications
to non-royal authorities (although for some specific sorts of documents it only
became the standard format later on: see below).
(B) Around the 230’s - 220’s BC, the early ὑπόμνημα format was replaced by the later
ὑπόμνημα format, characterised by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος. These
later ὑπομνήματα are much more homogenous and elaborate than their
predecessors.
(C) In the 220’s BC at the latest, the ὑπόμνημα became the standard format for
declarations of property. Before this period, declarations of property had been
composed in various other forms.
(D) Around 217 - 202 BC, the practice of formatting petitions to the strategos as
ἐντεύξεις in the name of the king was abandoned and the ὑπόμνημα became the
standard format for these documents.
(E) Around 210 - 183 BC, the early προσάγγελμα format disappeared and the
ὑπόμνημα became the standard format for notifications of crime to local officials
instead of the προσάγγελμα. In contrast to the early προσάγγελμα notifications,
most of these ὑπομνήματα are styled as petitions, with requests. Some of these 2nd
century BC ὑπομνήματα are still designated as προσάγγελμα in the sources, but after
the disappearance of the early προσάγγελμα this word had lost its strictly formal
meaning.
Although the changes listed above generally appear to have taken place at different
times (with a possible exception for changes A and B), they all seem rooted in a
similar logic of standardisation and simplification. The initial co-existence of
ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα addressed to authorities other than the king was
unnecessary and confusing. By restricting the use of the ἔντευξις format to royal
communications, a clear-cut distinction was drawn between messages addressed to
CONCLUSION 239
the sovereign, formatted as ἐντεύξεις, and messages addressed to other authorities,

formatted as ὑπομνήματα. Around the same period, and possibly in the very same
process, the early ὑπόμνημα format was replaced by the more homogenous and
elaborate later ὑπόμνημα format. This makeover was welcome, since the ὑπόμνημα
had now become the main format for petitions and other communications to non-
royal authorities. In the following decades, the ὑπόμνημα gained more and more
ground and also became the standard format for declarations of property
(previously composed in various other forms), petitions to the strategos (previously
composed as ἐντεύξεις addressed to the sovereign) and notifications of crime to
local officials (previously composed as προσαγγέλματα). After this long formative
period, the Ptolemaic ἔντευξις and ὑπόμνημα had both taken clear shape. On the
basis of the current evidence, no similar substantial evolutions can be discerned
with regard to the mḳmḳ format, but only few mḳmḳ are preserved. The mḳmḳ
prescript, at any rate, always remained essentially the same, unlike that of the
ὑπόμνημα after which it was modelled. Possibly, the state only regulated the use of
the ἔντευξις and ὑπόμνημα format, and the mḳmḳ, modelled after the early
ὑπόμνημα in the 3rd century BC, led a more isolated existence in indigenous
Egyptian circles.
The mḳmḳ gradually fell in disuse in the Roman period, just like other types of
Demotic texts. The ἔντευξις, only used for messages addressed to the sovereign
from the later 3rd century BC onwards, did not survive the end of the Ptolemaic
monarchy. The ὑπόμνημα, on the other hand, remained the most important format
for petitions and other communications to the authorities in Roman Egypt. These
Roman Egyptian ὑπομνήματα are heavily indebted to the Ptolemaic ὑπόμνημα and
closely related ἔντευξις: the ways of petitioning and approaching the authorities
developed under the Ptolemies clearly remained influential.
This study has by no means given a comprehensive overview of Ptolemaic petitions.

Several aspects of the petitioning system have been left (largely) unexplored,
although they surely deserve further attention: the reactions of the authorities to
petitions, the legal context of petitioning, the social context of petitioning, etcetera.
There is still lots of work to do.
Bibliography
ABD EL-FATTAH, A., ABD EL-MAKSOUD, M. & CARREZ-MARATRAY, J.Y.

2014 ‘Deux inscriptions grecques du Boubasteion d’Alexandrie’, Ancient Society 44, p. 149-177.
ADAMS, W.L.
1986 ‘Macedonian kingship and the right of petition’, Ancient Macedonia 4, p. 43-52.
ALONSO, J.L.
2012 ‘Πίστις in loan transactions: A new interpretation of P. Dion 11-12’, Journal of Juristic
Papyrology 62, p. 9-30.
ALY, Z.
1961 ‘Egypt’s Contribution towards the promotion of papyrological studies’, [in:] L. AMUNDSEN & V.
SKANLAND (eds.), Proceedings of the IX International Congress of Papyrology (Oslo, 19th-22nd August,
1958), Oslo, p. 328-334.
ANDORLINI, I.
2008 ‘Old and New Greek Papyri from Tebtunis in the Bancroft Library of Berkeley’, [in:] S. LIPPERT
& M. SCHENTULEIT (eds.), Graeco-Roman Fayum: texts and archaeology, Wiesbaden, p. 1-13.
ARLT, C.
2015 ‘The Temple Administration in Ptolemaic Soknopaiou Nesos. The Role of Tax Farming and
Monopolies’, [in:] M. CAPASSO & P. DAVOLI (eds.), Soknopaios. The Temple and Worship. Proceedings
of the First Round Table of the Centro di Studi Papirologici of Università del Salento, Lecce. October 9th
2013, Lecce, p. 9-32
ARMONI, C.
2000 ‘Drei ptolemäische Papyri der Heidelberger Sammlung’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 132, p. 225-239.
2001a ‘Bemerkungen zu Urkunden’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 136, p. 169-173.
2001b ‘Review of P. Sarischouli: Spätptolemäische Urkunden aus dem Herakleopolites (BGU
XVIII.I)’, Tyche 16, p. 315-321.
2003 ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri XVI (Korr. Tyche nos. 499-504)’, Tyche 18, p. 257-260.
2004 ‘P. Med. I2 32 und der ägyptische Aufstand der Thebais’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
2005 ‘Enteuxis mit Erwähnung der Verpfändung eines ἀμπελών (P.Heid. Inv. G 5017 Verso)’,
Archiv für Papyrusforschung 51, p. 208-227.
2009 ‘Bemerkungen zu dokumentarischen Papyri’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 171, p.
171-174.
2012 Studien zur Verwaltung des Ptolemäischen Ägypten: Das Amt des Basilikos Grammateus
[Papyrologica Coloniensia 36], Paderborn.
2020 ‘On Mice and Men. Bemerkungen zu dokumentarischen Texten’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 216, p. 197-202
AVOGADRO, S.
1935 ‘Le ΑΠΟΓΡΑΦΑΙ di proprietà nell’Egitto greco-romano’, Aegyptus 15, p. 131-206.
242 BIBLIOGRAPHY
AZZARELLO, G. & REITER, F.

2016 ‘Petition einer Frau wegen Verzögerungen eines ägyptisches Begräbnisses (P. B.U.G. inv.
260): Ein neuer Papyrus aus dem Zenon-Archiv?’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 200,
p. 313-320.
BACKHUYS, T.
2014 ‘Amtliche Mitteilung an Komanos’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 189, p. 199-204.
2018a ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri XXXI (Korr. Tyche no. 871b)’, Tyche 33, p. 241.
2018b ‘Vorschläge zu dokumentarischen Texten’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 64, p. 306-311.
2019 ‘Zu ptolemäischen Urkunden’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 65, p. 271-279.
BAETENS, G.
2014a ‘A petition to the epimeletes Dorotheos in Trinity College Dublin’, Ancient Society 44, p. 91-
104.
2014b ‘Demotic petitioning’, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 44, p. 29-69.
2016 ‘Some Corrections to Ptolemaic Petitions and Related Documents’, Bulletin of the American
Society of Papyrologists 53, p. 283-293.
2019 ‘Persuasive identities: an examination of rhetorical self-presentation strategies in Ptolemaic
petitions’, [in:] R. GUICHAROUSSE, P. ISMARD, M. VALLET & A.E. VEÏSSE (eds.), L'identification des
personnes dans les mondes grecs, Paris, p. 257-273.
2020 ‘An Embalmers’ Dispute in Hypsele/Shashotep’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 66.
BAETENS, G. & ANGLES, P.L.
2019 ‘A Demotic memorandum to the village epistates with a Greek subscription (P. dem. mon. 5)’,
Chronique d’Égypte 93, p. 281-294.
BAETENS, G. & CLARYSSE, W.
2016 ‘A Quarrel at the Beer Shop of Little Memphis and a Murder’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 62,
p. 396-404.
2017 ‘Some Notes on PUG IV’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 204, p. 182-186.
BAETENS, G. & DEPAUW, M.
2015 ‘The legal advice of Totoes in the Siut archive (P. BM 10591, verso, col. I-III)’, Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 101, p. 197-215.
2016 ‘A Demotic Petition about the Misconduct of an Official in the Papyrus Museum in Syracuse
(P. Syrac. 262)’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 197, p. 191-194.
BAGNALL, R.S.
1991 ‘Reponse to Hans-Albert Rupprecht’, [in:] M. GAGARIN (ed.), Symposion 1990: Vorträge zur
griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Pacific Grove, Cal., 24. - 26. Sept. 1990) [Akten der
Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 8], Vienna, p. 149-152.
BALAMOSHEV, C.
2011 ‘ΑΠΟΤΥΜΠΑΝΙΣΜΟΣ: Just death by exposing on the plank?’, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 41, p.
15-33.
2015 ‘P. Iand. inv. 398: a fragmentary Ptolemaic prosangelma’, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 45, p. 1-
8.
BALCONI, C.
2012 ‘Un documento inedito dal cosiddetto archivio di Pankrates’, [in:] P. SCHUBERT (ed.), Actes du
26e Congrès international de papyrologie. Genève, 16-21 août 2010 [Publications de la Faculté des
Lettres de l’Université de Genève 30], Geneva, p. 73-76.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 243
BARTOLETTI, V. et al.
1957 ‘Papiri inediti della Raccolta Fiorentina’, Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa (2nd series)
26, p. 176-189.
BASTIANINI, G.
1981 ‘Un abbozzo di enteuxis (P. Vindob. Barbara 9)’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 44, p.
147-152.
BASTIANINI, G. & GALLAZZI, C.
1987 ‘P. Cair. 10331: denuncia di una donna divorziata contro l’ex-marito’, Numismatica e Antichità
classiche. Quaderni Ticinesi 16, p. 167-174.
BATTAGLIA, E. et al.
1989 ‘Papiri documentari dell’Università Cattolica di Milano’, Aegyptus 69, p. 5-59.
BAUSCHATZ, J.
2005 ‘Three Duke Petitions’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 152, p. 187-196.
2007a ‘Ptolemaic prisons reconsidered’, The Classical Bulletin 83, p. 3-47.
2007b ‘The Strong Arm of the Law? Police Corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt’, The Classical Journal 103,
p. 13-39.
2013 Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, Cambridge.
2016 ‘Lochos and Ariston’, Tyche 31, p. 25-45.
BAUSCHATZ, J. & SOSIN, J.D.
2004 ‘Stealing livestock at Oxyrhyncha’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 146, p. 167-169.
BERKES, L. & CLAYTOR, W.G.
2019 ‘Two Petitions Addressed to Village Epistatai’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists
56, p. 55-63.
BERNEKER, E.
1930 Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht [dissertation Ludwig-Maximilians-
Universität München], Ansbach.
1934 ‘Zur Sondergerichtsbarkeit (P. Cairo Zenon 59466)’, Aegyptus 13, p. 25-30.
1935 Die Sondergerichtsbarkeit im griechischen Recht Ägyptens [Münchener Beiträge zur
Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 22], Munich.
BERNINI, A.
2010 ‘Note a documenti di età tolemaica’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 175, p. 171-176.
BERTI, M.
2007 ‘Papiri tolemaici da cartonnages dell’Università di Genova’, [in:] B. PALME (ed.), Akten des 23.
Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses (Wien, 22.-28. Juli 2001) [Papyrologica Vindobonensia 1],
Vienna.
BICKERMANN, E.
1926 ‘Review of P. Collomp: Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides’,
Philologische Wochenschrift 46, p. 1241-1246.
1930a ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. II. Ἀπογραφή, Οἰκογένεια, Ἐπίκρισις, Αἰγύπτιοι’,
Archiv für Papyrusforschung 9, p. 24-46.
1930b ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III. ῎Εντευξις und ὑπόμνημα’, Archiv für
Papyrusforschung 9, p. 155-182.
244 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIELMAN-SÁNCHEZ, A. & LENZO, G.

2015 Inventer le pouvoir féminin: Cléopâtre I et Cléopâtre II, reines d’Égypte au IIe s. av. J.-C., Bern.
BINGEN, J.
1987 ‘P. Cair. 10311 et le marché du fourrage’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 33, p. 5-7.
BLASCO-TORRES, A.I.
2017 ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri XXX (Korr. Tyche nos. 838-843)’, Tyche 32, p. 255-257.
BLUMELL, L.H. & ALIBERTI, C.
2018 ‘A Case of Ptolemaic Quid Pro Quo from the Phaies Archive’, Ancient Society 48, p. 1-8.
BÖHM, R.
1955 L’ἔντευξις de Varsovie (papyrus Edfou VIII) [Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes
31/4], Warsaw.
BORRELLI, B.
2018 ‘Stoffe, telai, tessitori e tasse: correzioni a papiri e ostraca’, Aegyptus 98, p. 161-171.
BOTTI, G.
1899 ‘Papyrus ptolémaïques du Musée d'Alexandrie’, Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie
2, p. 65-73.
BOYAVAL, B.
1966 ‘Un nouvel épistate, Thraséas (P. Sorb. Inventaire 2.304)’, Bulletin de l’Institut français
d’Archéologie orientale 64, p. 67-74.
1973 ‘Papyrus ptolémaïques inédits de Ghôran et Magdôla’, Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de
papyrologie et d’égyptologie de Lille 1, p. 185-285.
1974 ‘Brèves communications’, Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de papyrologie et d’égyptologie de Lille
2, p. 265-273.
1978 ‘Παγκράτης ἀρχισωματοφύλαξ καὶ πρὸς τῆι συντάξει’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
28, p. 187-193.
1988 ‘Papyrus ptolémaïques de Lille’, Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de papyrologie et d’égyptologie
de Lille 10, p. 105-111.
BROUX, Y.
2015 Double Names and Elite Strategy in Roman Egypt [Studia Hellenistica 54], Leuven.
BROWNE, G.M.
1966 ‘P. Hibeh 133: A reconsideration’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 3, p. 85-88.
BRYEN, A.Z.
2013 Violence in Roman Egypt: a study in legal interpretation, Philadelphia.
BUCKATZ, T.
2017 ‘Zwei neue Fragmente zur Eingabe SB XVIII 13099 aus der Trierer Papyrussamlung’, Archiv
für Papyrusforschung 63, p. 16-24.
BURIKS, A.
1946 ‘Papyrus de Leyde, dénonçant un vol’, [in:] B.A. VAN GRONINGEN & E.M. MEIJERS (eds.), Symbolae
ad Jus et Historiam Antiquitatis pertinentes Julio Christiano van Oven dedicatae (Symbolae van Oven),
Leiden, p. 111-115.
CALDWELL, R.
2002 ‘A Declaration of Property from the Michigan Collection’, Bulletin of the American Society of
Papyrologists 39, p. 7-11.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 245
CAPPONI, L.
2004 ‘Petizione tolemaica contro furto e violenza’, Tyche 19, p. 15-18.
CAULFIELD, T., ESTNER, A. & STEPHENS, S.A.
1989 ‘Complaints of Police Brutality (P. Mich. Inv.no. 6957, 6961 and 6979)’, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 76, p. 241-254.
CAVASSINI, M.T.
1955 ‘Exemplum vocis ἐντεύξεις in “Repertorio papyrorum Graecarum”, quae documenta tradant
Ptolemaicae aetatis’, Aegyptus 35, p. 299-324.
CHABIARAS, N.
1913 ‘Αρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας πάπυροι (ΑΕΠ 1-2)’, Archaiologike Ephemeris 1, p. 17-18.
CHAUFRAY, M.P.
2009 ‘Des lésônes en action dans le temple de Soknopaios à Soknopaiou Nésos à l’époque
ptolémaïque’, [in:] P. PIACENTINI & C. ORSENIGO (eds.), Egyptian Archives [Università degli studi
di Milano. Facoltà di lettere e filosofia. Quaderni di ACME 111], Milan, p. 157-168.
CHEVEREAU, P.M.
1985 Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens de la Basse Epoque: carrières militaires et carrières
sacerdotales en Égypte du XIe au IIe siècle avant J. C., Paris.
CLARYSSE, W.
1975 ‘Notes on Three Papyri Concerning Ptolemaic Clerouchs’, Ancient Society 6, p. 71-78.
1977 ‘Sur quelques documents ptolémaïques à Giessen’, Chronique d’Égypte 52, p. 120-121.
1979a ‘Egyptian estate holders in the Ptolemaic period’, [in:] E. LIPINSKI (ed.), State and Temple
Economy in the Ancient Near East [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5-6], Leuven, p. 731-743.
1979b ‘Ptolemaic papyri from Lycopolis’, [in:] J. BINGEN & G. NACHTERGAEL (eds.), Actes du XVe Congrès
International de Papyrologie, Brussels, p. 101-106.
1986 ‘UPZ I 6a, a reconstruction by Revillout’, Enchoria 14, p. 43-49.
1988a ‘A new fragment for a Zenon papyrus from Athens’, [in:] B.G. MANDILARAS (ed.), Proceedings of
the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology (Athens 25-31 May 1986), volume II, Athens, p. 77-81.
1988b ‘The financial problems of the beer-seller Ameneus’, Enchoria 16, p. 11-21.
1993 ‘Egyptian Scribes writing Greek’, Chronique d’Égypte 68, p. 186-201.
1994 ‘A Fragmentary Ptolemaic Petition in Lille’, Chronique d’Égypte 69, p. 107-108.
2000 ‘The Ptolemies visiting the Egyptian chora’, [in:] L. MOOREN (ed.), Politics, administration and
society in the Hellenistic and Roman world [Studia Hellenistica 36], Leuven, p. 29-53.
2002 ‘Three Ptolemaic Papyri on Prisoners’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 48, p. 98-106.
2017 ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri XXX (Korr. Tyche nos. 844-850)’, Tyche 32, p. 257-262.
CLARYSSE, W. & CRISCUOLO, L.
2005 ‘Two Petitions in the Archive of Pankrates’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 153, p.
168.
CLARYSSE, W. & FISCHER-BOVET, C.
2012 ‘Greek Papyri of the Classics Department at Stanford (P. Stan. Class.). Part I’, Journal of Juristic
Papyrology 42, p. 31-88.
CLARYSSE, W. & HAUBEN, H.
1991 ‘Ten Ptolemaic granary receipts from Pyrrheia’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 89, p.
47-68.
246 BIBLIOGRAPHY
CLARYSSE, W. & LANCIERS, E.

1989 ‘Currency and the dating of demotic and Greek papyri from the Ptolemaic period’, Ancient
Society 20, p. 117-132.
CLARYSSE, W. & MUSZYNSKI, M.
1977 ‘P. Ifao III 19’, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale 77, p. 193-195.
CLARYSSE, W. & QUAEGEBEUR, J.
1982 ‘Ibion, Isieion and Tharesieion in two Oslo Papyi’, Symbolae Osloenses 57, p. 69-85.
CLARYSSE, W. & SIJPESTEIJN, P.J.
1995 ‘A Letter from a Dancer of Boubastis’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 41, p. 56-61.
CLAYTOR, W.G.
2011 ‘P. Fordham inv. 5: a Ptolemaic Petition to the Archidikastes’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
COLLART, P. & JOUGUET, P.
1933 ‘Un papyrus ptolémaïque provenant de Deir el-Bahari’, Études de Papyrologie 2, p. 23-40.
COLLOMP, P.
1926 Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides [Publications de la Faculté des lettres
de l'Université de Strasbourg 29], Paris.
CRISCUOLO, L.
1985 ‘Petizione di un cleruco al comogrammateo’, [in:] S.F. BONDÌ, S. PERNIGOTTI, F. SERRA & A. VIVIAN
(eds.), Studi in onore di Edda Bresciani, Pisa, p. 127-133.
1993 ‘Una petizione frammentaria al dieceta Athenodoros (P. Med. Inv. 83.33)’, [in:] M. CAPASSO
(ed.), Papiri documentari greci [Papyrologica Lupiensia 2], Galatina, p. 67-72.
2004 ‘Papiri tolemaici dell’Università Cattolica di Milano’, Simblos 4, p. 7-23.
CRUM, W.E.
1939 A Coptic dictionary, Oxford.
CUVIGNY, H.
2017 ‘Papyrologica VI (nos. 46-48)’, Chronique d’Égypte 92, p. 432-437.
DARIS, S.
1966 ‘Miscellanea licopolitana, IIa’, Aegyptus 46, p. 171-177.
1970 ‘Frammento di petizione tolemaica’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 20, p. 15-16.
1975 ‘Frammenti tolemaici’, Chronique d’Égypte 50, p. 188-191.
1994 ‘Denuncia di due colombaie’, Aegyptus 74, p. 3-8.
DARIS, S. & CRISCUOLO, L.
1991 ‘Dai papiri inediti dell’Università Cattolica di Milano’, Aegyptus 71, p. 3-16.
DARIS, S. et al.
DE CENIVAL, F.
1967 ‘Deux serments démotiques concernant des comptes de bétail’, Recherches de Papyrologie 4, p.
99-106.
1984 ‘Fragments de lettres administratives du Fonds Jouguet’, [in:] H.J. THISSEN & K.T. ZAUZICH
(eds.), Grammata demotika: Festschrift für Erich Lüddeckens zum 15. Juni 1983, Würzburg, p. 15-23.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 247
DE FRUTOS GARCÍA, A.
2020 ‘P.Monts.Roca inv. 794 + 318: an Enteuxis from a Basilikos Georgos, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie
und Epigraphik 216, p. 207–215.
DEPAUW, M.
2006 The Demotic Letter: A Study of Epistolographic Scribal Traditions against their Intra- and Intercultural
Background [Demotische Studien 14], Sommerhausen.
DEVAUCHELLE, D. & WIDMER, G.
2009 ‘Un brouillon au stratège (O. Ifao Edfou D 632)’, [in:] I. RÉGEN & F. SERVAJEAN (eds.), Verba
Manent. Recueil d’études dédiées à Dimitri Meeks [Cahiers de l’ENiM 2], Montpellier, p. 83-96.
DI BITONTO, A.
1967 ‘Le petizioni al re’, Aegyptus 47, p. 5-57.
1968 ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’, Aegyptus 48, p. 53-107.
1976 ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’, Aegyptus 56, p. 109-143.
DI CERBO, C.
2004 ‘Neue demotische Texte aus Tebtynis. Überblick zu den demotischen Papyri der
italienisch/französischen Ausgrabung in Tebtynis aus den Jahren 1997-2000’, [in:] F.
HOFFMANN & H.J. THISSEN (eds.), Res Severa Verum Gaudium: Festschrift für Karl-Theodor Zauzich
zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004 [Studia demotica 6], Leuven, p. 109-119.
DICKEY, E.
2004 ‘The Greek Address System of the Roman Period and Its Relationship to Latin’, The Classical
Quarterly 54/2, p. 494-527.
2016 ‘Emotional language and formulae of persuasion in Greek papyrus letters’, [in:] E. SANDERS &
M. JOHNCOCK (eds.), Emotion and Persuasion in Classical Antiquity, Stuttgart, p. 237-262.
DUTTENHÖFER, R.
1996 ‘Fragmentarische Eingabe eines Priesters (P.Heid. VI 380 + P.UB Trier S 108-29)’, Archiv für
1998 ‘ΓΟΡΓΟΜΜΑΝΗΣ’, [in:] M. BAUMBACH, H. KÖHLER & A.M. RITTER (eds.), Mousopolos Stephanos.
Festschrift für Herwig Görgemanns, Heidelberg, p. 210-218.
EDGAR, C.C.
1937 ‘On P. Lille I. 4’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 23, p. 261.
EL-MOSALLAMY, A.H.
1984 ‘Official Notices Concerning Plunder of Rations (PCair. Mus. S.R. 2713)’, [in:] Atti del XVII
congresso internazionale di papirologia (Napoli, 19-26 maggio 1983), Naples, p. 815-823.
EYRE, C.
2013 The Use of Documents in Pharaonic Egypt, Oxford.
FACKELMANN, M.
1986 ‘Eine Anzeige wegen Einbruchdiebstahls aus Mumienkartonnage’, Anagennesis 4, p. 185-196.
FEISSEL, D. & GASCOU, J.
1995 ‘Documents d’archives romaines inédits du Moyen Euphrate (IIIe s. après J.-C.)’, Journal des
Savants 1995/1, p. 65-119.
2004 La pétition à Byzance [Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance,
Monographies 14], Paris.
FERRETTI, L., SCHUBERT, P. & TOMCIK, M.
2017 ‘Three Notes on Some Papyri from the Zenon Archive’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
248 BIBLIOGRAPHY
FERRETTI, L., FOGARTY, S., NURY, E. & SCHUBERT, P.

2020 ‘Cession of Cleruchic Land: from Procedure to Format’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
FISCHER-BOVET, C.
2014 ‘Un aspect des conséquences des réformes de l’armée lagide: soldats, temples égyptiens et
inviolabilité (asylia)’, [in:] A.E. VEÏSSE & S. WACKENIER (eds.), L’armée en Égypte aux époques perse,
ptolémaïque et romaine, Geneva, p. 137-170.
FITZLER, K.
1910 Steinbrüche und Bergwerke im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten: ein Beitrag zur antiken
Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Leipzig.
FORSELV, I.L.
2002 ‘A Petition to the Royal Scribe Horos of the Arsinoite Nome (P. Mich. Inv. 6956)’, Zeitschrift für
FOURNET, J.L.
2015 ‘Deux papyrus inédits des Archives de Zénon’, Ancient Society 45, p. 83-96.
GAO, X. & LONG, J.
2015 ‘On the Petition System in China’, University of St. Thomas Law Journal 12, p. 34-55.
GASCOU, J.
1999 ‘Unités administratives locales et fonctionnaires romains: les données des nouveaux
papyrus du Moyen Euphrate et d’Arabie’, [in:] W. ECK (ed.), Lokale Autonomie und römische
Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert [Schriften des
Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 42], Munich, p. 61-73.
GERACI, G. et al.
GONIS, N.
1994 ‘A new 2nd century B.C. prosangelma’, [in:] A. BÜLOW-JACOBSEN (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th
International Congress of Papyrologists. Copenhagen, 23-29 August, 1992, Copenhagen, p. 230-235.
2004 ‘J. G. Tait Reads O.Ashm.Shelton’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 150, p. 194-196.
GORRE, G.
2010 ‘Une première mention d’Hippalos, stratège de la Thébaïde?’, Chronique d’Égypte 85, p. 230-
239.
GRANDET, P.
2013 ‘The Ramesside State’, [in:] J.C. MORENO GARCÍA (ed.), Ancient Egyptian administration, Leiden, p.
831-899.
GROTKAMP, N.
2012 ‘Diebstahl im ptolemäischen Ägypten’, [in:] P. SCHUBERT (ed.), Actes du 26e congrès internationale
de papyrologie (Génève 2010) [Recherches et rencontres 30], Geneva, p. 117-124.
2014 ‘The Ptolemaic dikasterion’, [in:] A. LANNI & M. GAGARIN (eds.), Symposion 2013: Vorträge zur
griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte (Cambridge MA, 26.08.2013 - 29.08.2013) [Akten der
Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 24], Vienna, p. 347-360.
2018 Rechtsschutz im hellenistischen Ägypten, Munich.
GUÉRAUD, O.
1931 ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ: requêtes et plaintes adressées au roi d’Égypte au IIIe siècle avant J.C., Cairo.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 249
HAGEDORN, D.
1980 ‘Ein dritter Zeuge für Melankomas, den Archisomatophylax und Strategen des Arsinoites?’,
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 38, p. 190.
2003 ‘Bemerkungen zu Urkunden’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 145, p. 224-227.
HARRAUER, H. & PINTAUDI, R.
2012 ‘Mein Haus ist leer!: Enteuxis gegen die eigene Frau (P.Vindob. Barbara Inv. 34)’, Aegyptus 92,
p. 3-12.
HATZOPOULOS, M.B.
1996 Macedonian Institutions under the Kings: A Historical and Epigraphic Study, Athens.
HAUBEN, H.
2016 ‘The Ptolemaic Ordinance of 118 BC on the Jurisdiction of Royal and Egyptian Courts’,
Przegląd Historyczny 107, p. 441-470.
2019 ‘Carrying Stones on Egypt’s Waterways in the mid-250s BC. A Contribution to the Study of
the Kleon and Zenon Archives’, Ancient Society 49, p. 185-206.
HEERMA VAN VOSS, L.
2001 Petitions in Social History [International review of social history. Supplement 9], Cambridge.
HELLEBRAND, W.
1934 Das prozesszeugnis im Rechte der gräko-ägyptischen Papyri [Münchener Beiträge zur
HELMIS, A.
1986 Crime et châtiment dans l'Égypte ptolémaïque: recherches sur l'autonomie d'un modèle pénal
[dissertation Université de Paris X - Nanterre], Paris.
HENGSTL, J.
1997 ‘Petita in Petitionen gräko-ägyptischer Papyri’, [in:] G. THÜR & J. VÉLISSAROPOULOS-KARAKOSTAS
(eds.), Symposion 1995: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte [Akten der
Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 11], Cologne, p. 265-289.
HERRMANN, J.
1958 Studien zur Bodenpacht im Recht der graeco-aegyptischen Papyri [Münchener Beiträge zur
HOGAN, A.
2019 ‘The Auction of Pharaoh Revisited’, [in:] F. NAETHER (ed.), New Approaches in Demotic Studies:
Acts of the 13th International Conference of Demotic Studies, Berlin, p. 107-121.
HÖLBL, G.
1994 Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis
zur römischen Eroberung, Darmstadt.
HOMBERT, M. & PRÉAUX, C.
1942a ‘Les papyrus de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth IX’, Chronique d’Égypte 17, p. 287-
290.
1942b ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’, Chronique d’Égypte 17, p. 259-286.
250 BIBLIOGRAPHY
HUE-ARCÉ, C.
2018 ‘Grec(que)s contre Égyptien(ne)s dans les enteuxeis ptolémaïques: la question du genre dans
les P. Enteux. 79 et P. Enteux. 82’, Archimède 5, p. 165-174.
2020 La violence interpersonelle en Égypte au Nouvel Empire et à l’époque gréco-romaine, Wallasey.
HUß, W.
2011 Die Verwaltung des ptolemaeiischen Reichs [Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und
antiken Rechtsgeschichte 104], Munich.
IOANNIDOU, H.G.
2006 ‘Petition to an archisomatophylax (P.Thrace 1)’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 52, p. 31–40.
JAKAB, E.
2014 ‘Auctions and Ownership in Ptolemaic Egypt: A Social and Economic Approach’, [in:] A. LANNI
& M. GAGARIN (eds.), Symposion 2013: Vorträge zur griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte
(Cambridge MA, 26.08.2013 - 29.08.2013) [Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und
hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 24], Vienna, p. 313-337.
JAY, J.E.
2015 ‘The Petition of Petiese Reconsidered’, [in:] F. HAIKAL (ed.), Mélanges offerts à Ola el-Aguizy
[Bibliothèque d'étude de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale 164], Cairo, p. 229-247.
JOHNSON, W.A.
2018 ‘Ptolemaic Mummy Stuffings, 3: The Documentary Texts (Beinecke P.CtYBR inv. 5058,5059,
5060, 5061, 5062, 5063)’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 206, p. 157-178.
JONKER, E., RISSELADA, R. & TROMP, A.M.
1983 ‘Drei Wiener Papyri’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 50, p. 127-132.
JÖRDENS, A.
2010 ‘Ehebruch und Sonstiges. Zum Archiv des Phrurarchen Dioskurides und anderen
ptolemäischen Petitionen’, [in:] H. KNUF, C. LEITZ & D. VON RECKLINGHAUSEN (eds.), Honi soit qui
mal y pense. Studien zum pharaonischen, griechisch-römischen und spätantiken Ägypten (Festschrift
Heinz-Josef Thissen) [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 194], Leuven, p. 245-256.
KAIMIO, M.
1979 ‘Hypomnema an einen Erzleibwächter und Strategen’, Arctos 13, p. 43-48.
KALTSAS, D.
2009 ‘Διορθωτικά’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 171, p. 186-192.
2010 ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri XXIII (Korr. Tyche nos. 661-675)’, Tyche 25, p. 213-220.
2018 ‘Notes on Ptolemaic Texts’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 55, p. 211-218.
KAPLONY-HECKEL, U.
1963 Die demotischen Tempeleide [Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 6], Wiesbaden.
KÄPPEL, E.
2016 ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri XXIX (Korr. Tyche no. 828)’, Tyche 31, p. 280-281.
2017 ‘Ein Asebieverfahren vor den Chrematisten? Eine Neuedition von P.Coll.Youtie I 12’,
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 203, p. 213-222.
2018 ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri XXXI (Korr. Tyche no. 871a)’, Tyche 33, p. 240-241.
KELLY, B.
2011 Petitions, Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt, Oxford.
2016 ‘Petitions with Requests for Registration from Roman Egypt’, [in:] R. HAENSCH (ed.), Recht
haben und Recht bekommen im Imperium Romanum: Das Gerichtswesen der Römischen Kaiserzeit und
BIBLIOGRAPHY 251
seine dokumentarische Evidenz [Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplement 24], Warsaw, p. 407-
456.
KOENEN, L.
1989 ‘The Double Date of P. Sorb. Inv. 2407’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 76, p. 255-256.
KORTENBEUTEL, H.
1936 ‘Zum Sondergericht der Aposkeuai’, Aegyptus 16, p. 292-295.
KOTSIFOU, C.
2016 ‘Prayers and petitions for justice. Despair and the ‘crossing of boundaries’ between religion
and law’, Tyche 31, p. 167-199.
KRAGLER, P.
1980 ‘Prozessrechtliche Fragen des P. Frankfurt 7’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 27, p. 79-89.
KRAMER, B.
2007 ‘Brief an den Königlichen Schreiber über Steuereinnahmen (Anzeige wegen Erpressung?)’,
[in:] K. STROBEL (ed.), Von Noricum nach Ägypten: Eine Reise durch die Welt der Antike. Aktuelle
Forschungen zu Kultur, alltag und Recht in der römischen Welt [Altertumswissenschaftliche
studien Klagenfurt 3], Klagenfurt, p. 277-284.
KRAMER, B. & HAGEDORN, D.
1987 ‘Zwei ptolemäische Texte aus der Hamburger Papyrussamlung’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung
33, p. 9-21.
KRAMER, B. & SÁNCHEZ-MORENO ELLART, C.
2017 Neue Quellen zum Prozessrecht der Ptolemäerzeit. Gerichtsakten aus der Trierer Papyrussamlung (P.
Trier I) [Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete Beihefte 36], Berlin.
KRAUT, B.
1990 ‘Hypomnema to Theogenes the Dioiketes’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 80, p. 273-
276.
KUGLER, R.
2010 ‘Dorotheos Petitions for the Return of Philippa (P.Polit.Jud. 7): A Case Study in the Jews and
their Law in Ptolemaic Egypt’, [in:] T. GAGOS & A. HYATT (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth
International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, p. 387-396.
2016 ‘Judean legal reasoning in P. Polit. Iud. 3-5: A research report’, [in:] T. DERDA, A. LAJTAR & J.
URBANIK (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology (Warsaw 29 July - 3
August 2013) [Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplement 28], Warsaw, p. 1565-1578.
LÁDA, C. & PAPATHOMAS, A.
2003 ‘A Ptolemaic Petition by a Royal Famer Concerning the Postponement of Legal Proceedings
before the Laokritai’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 49, p. 183-189.
2015 ‘Enteuxis Concerning Illegal Sale of Cedria’, Tyche 30, p. 81-90.
LANCIERS, E.
2018a ‘Lochos: A Career in the Service of Ptolemy VIII’, Chronique d’Égypte 93, p. 376-394.
2018b ‘The Career of Some Officials in the Arsinoite Nome in the Early Second Century BC’, Tyche
33, p. 119-129.
2018c ‘The Emergence of the Ptolemaic Honorific Court Titles’, Ancient Society 48, p. 49-82.
2019 ‘Antaios, a Ptolemaic Strategos of Alexandria’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 56,
p. 225-231.
LAQUEUR, R.
1904 Quaestiones epigraphicae et papyrologicae selectae, Strasbourg.
252 BIBLIOGRAPHY
LEHMANN, S. et al.
2014 Aegyptiaca und Papyri. Der Sammlung Julius Kurth, Dresden.
LENGER, M.T.
1951 ‘Fragment d’ὑπόμνημα du IIe siècle avant J.-C.’, Aegyptus 31, p. 246-253.
1954 ‘Une nouvelle édition de P. Petrie III, 20, recto, coll. 1-3 (Bodl. MS Gr. class. c. 16 (P) recto)’,
Chronique d’Égypte 29, p. 124-136.
LENZO, G.
2015 ‘A Xoite Stela of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II with Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III (British
Museum EA 612)’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 101, p. 217-237.
LÉOPOLD, M.
1844 Le pétitionnaire belge ou Guide des personnes qui ont à présenter des pétitions, mémoires, requêtes,
placets, plaintes et réclamations au roi, à la reine, aux princes et aux princesses, aux ministres, aux
magistrats, et généralement à tous les fonctionnaires belges, Brussels.
LETRONNE, J.A., BRUNET DE PRESLE, W. & EGGER, E.
1865 Notices et textes des papyrus du Musée du Louvre et de la Bibliothèque Impériale, Paris.
LIPPERT, S.
2012 Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte [Einführungen und Quellentexte zur
Ägyptologie 5], Münster.
LORBER, C.
2017 ‘The Price (Timê) of the Silver Stater in Ptolemaic Egypt’, Ancient Society 47, p. 19-61.
LOVE, E.O.D.
forthc. ‘Beyond Earthly Justice – Petitions to Deities (“Letters to Gods”) and Divine Judgement’, [in:]
S. WAEBENS & K. VANDORPE (eds.), Two Sides of the Same Coin: Dispute Resolution in Greco-Roman
and Late Antique Egypt [Studia Hellenistica], Leuven.
MAEHLER, H.
1987 ‘Eine neue ptolemäische Enteuxis’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 33, p. 23-31.
MARTHOT, I.
2012 ‘Homonyms causing confusion in toponymy: examples from Aphrodito and the Antaiopolite
nome’, [in:] P. SCHUBERT (ed.), Actes du 26e Congrès international de papyrologie (Genève, 16–21 août
2010) [Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Genève 30], Geneva, p. 487-490.
MARTIN, A.
2007 ‘Τῷ δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος: Réflexions à propos d’un type documentaire’, [in:] J. FRÖSÉN, T.
PUROLA & E. SALMENKIVI (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology: Helsinki,
1-7 August, 2004, Helsinki, p. 661-675.
MARTIN, A. & NACHTERGAEL, G.
1997 ‘Papyrus du Musée du Caire. I’, Chronique d’Égypte 72, p. 295-306.
1999 ‘Papyrus du Musée du Caire. III’, Chronique d’Égypte 74, p. 301-315.
MARTINEZ, D.
2011a ‘Two Documentary Second-Century BC Papyri’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 177, p.
207-216.
2011b ‘P. Texas inv. 2 reconsidered’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 177, p. 217-219.
MASCELLARI, R.
2009-
2010 ‘Note a petizioni di epoca romana’, Analecta Papyrologica 21-22, p. 137-147.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 253
2012 Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano. Evoluzione di formulario, procedure e organizzazione della giustizia.
Documentazione su papiro dal 30 a.C. al 300 d.C. [dissertation Università degli Studi di Firenze],
Florence.
2015 ‘The dating of SB XVI 12524, SB XIV 11264, and the archiphylakites’, Analecta Papyrologica 27, p.
139-141.
2018 ‘Il salute finale delle petizioni nei papiri di epoca romana: da εὐτύχει a διευτύχει’, Archiv für
MCGING, B.C.
2002 ‘Illegal salt in the Lycopolite nome’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 48, p. 42-66.
MESSERI SAVORELLI, G.
1999 ‘Papiri documentari Viennesi’, Analecta Papyrologica 10-11, p. 33-64.
2006 ‘Scampoli II’, Aegyptus 86, p. 155-165.
2019 ‘Scampoli VI’, Aegyptus 99, p. 49-60.
MESSERI SAVORELLI, G. & PINTAUDI, R.
1994 ‘Petizione al komogrammateus Petesuchos’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 104, p.
233-240.
1995 ‘Zenoniana’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 107, p. 113-120.
MEYER, P.M.
1920 Juristische Papyri: Erklärung von Urkunden zur Einführung in die juristische Papyruskunde, Berlin.
MITTEIS, L.
1912 Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde. Zweiter Band, Juristischer Teil. Erste Hälfte:
Grundzüge, Leipzig.
MIRIZIO, G.
2016 ‘Archetypes and Antigrapha in the Papyrological Documentation: Preliminary
Considerations’, Analecta Papyrologica 28, p. 255-271.
MODRZEJEWSKI, J.M.
2011 Droit et justice dans le monde grec et hellénistique [Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplement 10],
Warsaw.
MOOREN, L.
1977 La hiérarchie de cour ptolémaïque. Contribution à l’étude des institutions et des classes dirigeantes à
l’époque hellénistique [Studia Hellenistica 23], Leuven.
MONTE, A.
2018 Neue Quellen zum griechisch-römisch-byzantinischen Ägypten: Erstedition von fünfzehn griechischen
Papyrustexten der Berliner Papyrussammlung [dissertation Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin],
Berlin.
MONTEVECCHI, O. et al.
MÜLLER, W.
1961 ‘Bemerkungen zu den spätptolemäischen Papyri der Berliner Sammlung’, [in:] L. AMUNDSEN &
V. SKANLAND (eds.), Proceedings of the IX International Congress of Papyrology (Oslo, 19th-22nd
August, 1958), Oslo, p. 183-193.
NELSON, C.A.
1996 ‘Liturgical Nomination of δημόσιοι τῆς κώμης’, Chronique d’Égypte 71, p. 105-114.
OTTO, W.
1920 ‘Das Audienzfenster im Serapeum bei Memphis’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 6, p. 303-323.
254 BIBLIOGRAPHY
PANAGOPOULOU, K.
2016 ‘Gold in Ptolemaic Egypt: Exchange Practices in Light of P.Cair.Zen. I 59021’, Zeitschrift für
PARCA, M.
1984 ‘P.Mich. Inv.Nr. 6949: A New 3rd Century B.C. Prosangelma’, [in:] Atti del XVII congresso
internazionale di papirologia (Napoli, 19-26 maggio 1983), Naples, p. 1227-1232.
1985 ‘Prosangelmata ptolémaïques: une mise à jour’, Chronique d'Égypte 60, p. 240-247.
PEREMANS, W.
1982 ‘Die Amtsmißbräuche im ptolemäischen Ägypten’, [in:] W. SCHULLER (ed.), Korruption im
Altertum, Munich, p. 103-133.
PEREMANS, W. & VAN ‘T DACK, E.
1953 Prosopographica [Studia Hellenistica 9], Leuven.
PESTMAN, P.W.
1967 Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C. - 453 ap. J.-C.) [P. L. Bat. XV],
Leiden.
1985 ‘The Competence of Greek and Egyptian Tribunals According to the Decree of 118 B.C.’,
Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 22, p. 265-269.
PESTMAN, P.W. et al.
1981 A guide to the Zenon archive [P. L. Bat. XXI], Leiden.
PIEJKO, F.
1986 ‘A Petition for New Looms’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 23, p. 131-135.
PORTEN B. et al.
1996 The Elephantine papyri in English: three millennia of cross-cultural continuity and change
[Documenta et monumenta Orientis Antiqui 22], Leiden.
PORTEN, B. & YARDENI, A.
1986 Textbook of Aramaic documents from Ancient Egypt, Jerusalem.
PREISIGKE, F. & KIESSLING, E.
1927 Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden mit Einschluß der griechischen Inschriften,
Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder usw. aus Ägypten. II. Band, Berlin.
QUACK, J.F.
2014 ‘Bemerkungen zur Struktur der demotischen Schrift und zur Umschrift des Demotischen’,
[in:] M. DEPAUW & Y. BROUX (eds.), Acts of the Tenth International Congress of Demotic Studies,
Leuven, 26-30 August 2008 [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 231], Leuven, p. 207-242.
QUENOUILLE, N.
2019 ‘Hypomnema und seine verschiedenen Bedeutungen’, [in:] A. NODAR & S. TORALLAS TOVAR
(eds.), Proceedings of the 28th International Congress of Papyrology, Barcelona 1-6 August 2016,
Barcelona, p. 674-682.
REA, J.R.
1981 ‘Petition to a Chief of Police’, [in:] E. BRESCIANI, G. GERACI, S. PERNIGOTTI & G. SUSINI (eds.), Scritti
in onore di Orsolina Montevecchi, Bologna, p. 317-321.
REEKMANS, T.
1968 ‘Une enteuxis ptolémaïque sur pierre’, Chronique d’Égypte 43, p. 363-364.
REEKMANS, T. & VAN ‘T DACK, E.
1950 ‘A 2nd century BC petition (Bodleian Ms. Gr. Class. c(87) P)’, Revue internationale des droits de
l’antiquité 5, p. 417-427.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 255
REICH, N.
1911 ‘Aus der Sammlung der demotischen Papyri in der Kgl. Bayrischen Hof- und Staatsbibliothek
zu München’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 25, p. 311-317.
REVILLOUT, E.
1893 Quelques textes traduits à mes cours, Paris.
REYMOND, E.A.E.
1972 ‘Two Demotic Memoranda’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58, p. 254-267.
RIGSBY, K.J.
1996 Asylia: territorial inviolability in the Hellenistic world [Hellenistic culture and society 22],
Berkeley.
ROBINSON, G. & HARRAUER, H.
1986 ‘Enteuxisfragment aus 255/254 v.Chr.’, Aegyptus 66, p. 101-104.
RÖSCH, F.X.
1965 Die frühptolemäischen Rechtsschutzbitten und ihre verfahrensrechtliche Behandlung durch den
Strategen [dissertation Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg], Erlangen-
Nürnberg.
RUPPRECHT, H.A.
1991 ‘Straftaten und Rechtsschutz nach den griechischen Papyri der ptolemäischen Zeit’, [in:] M.
GAGARIN (ed.), Symposion 1990: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte
(Pacific Grove, Cal., 24. - 26. Sept. 1990) [Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische
Rechtsgeschichte 8], Vienna, p. 139-148.
1993 ‘Hybris. Anmerkungen zu einem Delikt in den Papyri der ptolemäischen und römischen
Zeit’, [in:] S. BUCHHOLZ (ed.), Überlieferung, Bewahrung und Gestaltung in der rechtsgeschichtlichen
Forschung [Rechts- und staatswissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Görres-Gesellschaft
69], Paderborn, p. 269-275.
SACHAU, E.
1911 Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militär-Kolonie zu Elephantine: altorientalische
Sprachdenkmäler des 5. Jahrhunderts vor Chr., Leipzig.
SAMUEL, A.E.
1966 ‘The Judicial Competence of the Oikonomos in the Third Century B.C.’, [in:] Atti dell'XI
Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Milan, p. 444-450.
SCHORN, S.
2016 ‘Das Idealbild des Beamten in den Papyri der ptolemäischen Zeit’, [in:] S. FÖLLINGER, K. DROß-
KRÜPE & K. RUFFING (eds.), Antike Wirtschaft und ihre kulturelle Prägung (2000 v.Chr. – 500 n.Chr.)
[Philippika 98], Wiesbaden, p. 131-161.
SCHRAM, V.
2017 ‘«They beat him with bronze files» (UPZ I 7): le mot “ξυστήρ” et les différents types de
«racloirs»’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 63, p. 29-47.
SCHUBART, W.
1937 ‘Das hellenistische Köningsideal nach Inschriften und Papyri’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 12,
p. 1-26.
SCHWENDNER, G.W.
1988 Literary and non-literary papyri from the University of Michigan collection [dissertation University
of Michigan], Ann Arbor.
SCHWENDNER, G.W. & SIJPESTEIJN, P.J.
1994 ‘An enteuxis from the Zenon archive from a female plaintiff’, Ancient Society 25, p. 141-149.
256 BIBLIOGRAPHY
SEIDER, R.
1938 Beiträge zur Ptolemäischen Verwaltungsgeschichte. Der Normarches. Der Dioiketes Apollonios
[Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums und des Mittelalters 8],
Heidelberg.
1990 Paläographie der griechischen Papyri. Vol. 3.1. Text. 1: Urkundenschrift 1. Mit einer Vorgeschichte zur
Paläographie der griechischen Papyri, Stuttgart.
SEIDL, E.
1962 Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte, 2nd edition [Ägyptologische Forschungen 22], Glückstadt.
SEMEKA, G.
1913 Ptolemäisches Prozessrecht: Studien zur ptolemäischen Gerichtsverfassung und zum
Gerichtsverfahren, Munich.
SETHE, K.
1921 Ein bisher unbeachtetes Dokument zur Frage nach den Wesen der κατοχή im Serapeum von Memphis
[Papyrusinstitut Heidelberg. Schriften 2], Berlin.
SEYFARTH, J.
1958 ‘Griechische Urkunden und Briefe aus der Heidelberger Papyrussamlung’, Archiv für
SIJPESTEIJN, P.J.
1975 ‘Cinq papyrus ptolémaïques des Giessener Papyrussamlungen’, [in:] J. BINGEN, G. CAMBIER & G.
NACHTERGAEL (eds.), Le monde grec. Hommages à Claire Préaux, Brussels, p. 585-595.
1978 ‘Ptolemaic Property-Return’, Chronique d’Égypte 53, p. 307-312.
1993 ‘Three Small Papyri from the Princeton Collection’, Aegyptus 73, p. 27-32.
1995 ‘Known and Unknown Officials’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 106, p. 203-234.
SKARSOULI, E.
2020a ‘Bemerkungen zu Petitionen wegen tätlicher Angriffe’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
2020b ‘Bemerkungen zu Petitionen wegen tätlichen Angriffs’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
SOSIN, J.D.
1997 ‘P. Duk. inv. 677: Aetos, from Arsinoite Strategos to Eponymous Priest’, Zeitschrift für
1999 ‘Abduction at the Threshing Floor: P. Duk.inv. 714-716’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
SOSIN, J.D. & OATES, J.F.
1997 ‘P.Duk.inv. 314: Agathis, Strategos and Hipparches of the Arsinoite Nome’, Zeitschrift für
SPIEGELBERG, W.
1930 ‘Eine neue Erwähnung eines Aufstandes in Oberägypten in der Ptolemäerzeit’, Zeitschrift für
Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 65, p. 53-57.
STADLER, M.
2008 ‘On the Demise of Egyptian Writing: Working with a Problematic Source Basis’, [in:] J. BAINES,
J. BENNET & S. HOUSTON (eds.), The Disappearance of Writing Systems: Perspectives on Literacy and
Communication, London, p. 157-181.
STAVRIANOPOULOU, E.
2012 ‘Tοῦ δικαίου τυχεῖν, oder: Die Macht der Bitte’, [in:] C. KUHN (ed.), Politische Kommunikation
und öffentliche Meinung in der antiken Welt, Stuttgart, p. 123-149.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 257
STERN, M.
2016 ‘Drei neue ptolemäische Papyri und das Amtsarchiv des Demetrios’, Bulletin of the American
STOLK, J.
2011 Archives from Cartonnage: The Dossier of Lamiske [unpublished thesis KU Leuven], Leuven.
STOOP, J.
2014 ‘Two Copies of a Royal Petition from Kerkeosiris, 163-146 BCE’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
TAIT, J.
1984 ‘A Demotic list of temple and court occupations: P. Carlsberg 23’, [in:] H.J. THISSEN & K.T.
ZAUZICH (eds.), Grammata demotika: Festschrift für Erich Lüddeckens zum 15. Juni 1983, Würzburg,
p. 211-233.
TAUBENSCHLAG, R.
1950 ‘The Inviolability of Domicile in Greco-Roman Egypt’, Archív Orientální 18/4, p. 293-297.
1955 The law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the light of the papyri 332 B.C.-640 A.D., 2nd edition, Warsaw.
TEPEDINO GUERRA, A.
2015 ‘P. Sal. Gr. 2: un prosangelma tolemaico’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 61, p. 114-121.
THOMPSON, D.J.
1967 ‘A Ptolemaic Petition on Stone’, Chronique d’Égypte 42, p. 355-359.
1978 ‘The good official of Ptolemaic Egypt’, [in:] H. MAEHLER & V.M. STROCKA (eds.), Das Ptolemäische
Ägypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 27.-29. September
1976 in Berlin, Mainz am Rhein, p. 195-202.
2012 ‘P.Enteux. 27 and the Nile transport of grain under the Ptolemies’, [in:] P. SCHUBERT (ed.),
Actes du 26e Congrès international de papyrologie (Genève, 16–21 août 2010) [Publications de la
Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Genève 30], Geneva, p. 751-754.
TURNER, E.G. & COCKLE, W.E.H.
1982 ‘Complaint against a Policeman’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 68, p. 272-276.
UEBEL, F.
1962a ‘Griechische Papyri der Zeit Euergetes’ II. aus Euhemeria in Giessen und Jena’, Archiv für
1962b ‘Ταραχὴ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 17, p. 147-162.
1966 ‘Leipziger Fragmente zu P. Jen. Inv. 77-79’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 18, p. 39-43.
1968 Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemäern, Berlin.
VANAVERBEKE, P.
1968 Bijdrage tot de studie van de P. Petrie Ined. (Papyri Trinity college Dublin) [unpublished thesis KU
Leuven], Leuven.
VAN BEEK, B. & DEPAUW, M.
2013 ‘Quantifying imprecisely dated sources: A new inclusive method for charting diachronic
change in Graeco-Roman Egypt’, Ancient Society 43, p. 101-114.
VANDEMOORTELE, K.
1998 Het archief van Pankrates, hoofd van de syntaxis van de ruiters-katoiken [unpublished thesis KU
Leuven], Leuven.
VANDONI, M.
1976 ‘Le prebende sacerdotali nei documenti greco-egizi’, Aegyptus 56, p. 104-108.
258 BIBLIOGRAPHY
VANDORPE, K.
2014 ‘The Ptolemaic Army in Upper Egypt (2nd-1st centuries B.C.)’, [in:] A.E. VEÏSSE & S. WACKENIER
(eds.), L’armée en Égypte aux époques perse, ptolémaïque et romaine, Geneva, p. 105-135.
VAN MINNEN, P.
1994 ‘Taking Stock: Declarations of Property from the Ptolemaic Period’, Bulletin of the American
2011 ‘Notes on papyri’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 48, p. 225-227.
VAN OPPEN DE RUITER, B.
2010 ‘The Death of Arsinoe II Philadelphus: The Evidence Reconsidered’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie
und Epigraphik 174, p. 139-150.
VEÏSSE, A.E.
2009 ‘Toi qui détestes les méchants. Le thème de la “haine du mal” dans les papyrus grecs
d’Égypte’, [in:] M. DELEPLACE (ed.), Les discours de la haine. Récits et figures de la passion dans la
Cité, Villeneuve d’Ascq, p. 21-31.
2013 ‘L’expression de l’identité dans les pétitions d’époque ptolémaïque. Étude préliminaire’, [in:]
S. BUSSI (ed.), Egitto dai Faraoni agli Arabi. Atti del Convegno “Egitto: amministrazione, economia,
società, cultura dai Faraoni agli Arabi” (Milano, 7-9 gennaio 2013) [Studi ellenistici. Supplementi 1],
Pisa - Rome, p. 81-90.
VERHOOGT, A.
1998 Menches, komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris: the doings and dealings of a village scribe in the late
Ptolemaic period (120-110 B.C.) [P. L. Bat. XXIX], Leiden.
VERRETH, H.
2013 A survey of toponyms in Egypt in the Graeco-Roman period [Trismegistos online publications 2],
Leuven.
VITTMANN, G.
1996 ‘Zum Gebrauch des kȝ-Zeichens im Demotischen’, Studi di Egittologia e di antichità puniche 15,
p. 1-12.
1998 Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9 [Ägypten und altes Testament 38], Wiesbaden.
WANGSTEDT, S.V.
1966 ‘Eine demotische Rechtsurkunde aus Gebelên’, Orientalia Suecana 14-15, p. 45-50.
WEGENER, E.
1947 ‘Petition concerning the Dowry of a Widow (P. Berl. Inv. 16.277)’, Mnemosyne (3rd series) 13, p.
302-316.
WHITE, J.L.
1972 The form and structure of the official petition: a study in Greek epistolography [Society of biblical
literature. Dissertation series 5], Missoula.
1982 ‘The ancient epistolography group in retrospect’, [in:] J.L. WHITE (ed.), Studies in ancient letter
writing [Semeia 22], Chico, p. 1-14.
WILCKEN, U.
1908 ‘Bibliographie’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 4, p. 198-268.
1912 Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde. Erster Band: Historischer Teil. Erste Hälfte:
Grundzüge, Leipzig.
1920 ‘Papyrus-Urkunden’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 6, p. 361-454.
1924 ‘Papyrus-Urkunden’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 7, p. 67-114.
1927 ‘Zu den Syrischen Göttern’, Festgabe für A. Deissmann zum 60. Geburtstag am 7 Nov. 1926,
Tübingen, p. 1-19.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 259
WINKLER, A.
2020 ‘Priests Petitioning the Police (P.Brit.Mus. EA 10650)’, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 147, p. 115-129.
WINKLER, A. & ZELLMANN-ROHRER, M.
2016 ‘A Bilingual Petition from the Priests of Roman Tebtunis’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
WOLFF, H.J.
1962 Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer [Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken
Rechtsgeschichte 44], 1st edition, Munich.
1966 ‘Organisation der Rechtspflege und Rechtskontrolle der Verwaltung im ptolemäisch-
römischen Ägypten bis Diokletian’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 34, p. 1-40.
1970 Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer [Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken
Rechtsgeschichte 44], 2nd edition, Munich.
WYNS, V.
2017 ‘The State Ideology of the Ptolemies: Origins and Influences’, Chronique d’Égypte 92, p. 137-
174.
ZAUZICH, K.T.
1972 ‘Zu einigen Papyri Loeb’, Enchoria 2, p. 149-151.
ZELLMANN-ROHRER, M.
2019 ‘Notes on Inscribed Objects from the Near East and Egypt II’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
ZIEGLER, R.
1995 ‘Bemerkungen zu verschiedenen Urkunden’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 106, p.
189-194.
1996 ‘Bemerkungen zur Datierung von Dokumentarischer Papyri und Ostraka’, Zeitschrift für
1999 ‘Bemerkungen zur Datierung von Urkunden’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 125, p.
211-214.
ZIEMANN, F.
1910 De epistularum graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae [Dissertationes philologicae
Halenses 18/4], Halle.
ZUCKER, F.
1911 Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Gerichtsorganisation im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten, Leipzig.
Sources
The following table lists all papyrological and epigraphical sources cited in this
study. The third column contains references to the publications of these texts (in
case they are not published in a well-known volume that can be found on the basis
of the used abbreviation). In the fourth column, all additions and corrections to the
texts known by the author are listed.
IDENTIFICATION TM NO. PUBLICATION ADDENDA & CORRIGENDA
BGU I 112 8886 BL 1; BL 6; BL 7; BL 10
BGU II 379 9142 BL 1; BL 3; BL 7
BGU III 1004 5551 BL 1; BL 6; BL 8; BL 9; BL 12
BGU III 1006 8727 BL 1; BL 3
BGU III 1007 5552 BL 1; BL 8; BL 12; ZIEGLER (1996)
BGU III 1011 44037
BGU III 1012 5553 ZIEGLER (1996)
BGU IV 1061 18506 BL 1
BGU IV 1187 4524 BL 3; BL 5; BL 10
BGU IV 1190 4525 BL 1; BL 8; FERRETTI, FOGARTY, NURY &
SCHUBERT (2020), p. 207
BGU VI 1241 7318 BL 11
BGU VI 1244 4405 BL 2; BL 4; BL 11; BGU VI, p. 192
BGU VI 1245 7321 BL 2
BGU VI 1246 7322 BL 12
BGU VI 1247 4538 BL 2; BL 3; BL 11
BGU VI 1249 4540 BL 2; BL 8; BL 11
BGU VI 1250 7323 P. Köln XVI, p. 121
BGU VI 1251 4541 BL 7; BL 8
BGU VI 1252 7324 BL 2; BAETENS & CLARYSSE (2017), p. 184
BGU VI 1253 7325
BGU VI 1254 4542
BGU VI 1255 7326 BL 6; BL 7
BGU VI 1256 4543 BL 7
BGU VI 1470 61247 BL 7
BGU VIII 1747 4829
BGU VIII 1756 4838 BL 5; BL 7; BL 9; KALTSAS (2010), p. 213-214
BGU VIII 1757 8295 BL 8; BL 13
BGU VIII 1760 4841 BL 3; BL 8
BGU VIII 1761 4842
BGU VIII 1772 4853 BL 3; BL 6; BL 8; BL 10; BL 13
BGU VIII 1779 4860 BL 11; BL 13
BGU VIII 1780 4861 BL 8; BL 13
BGU VIII 1783 4864 BL 9
BGU VIII 1796 4876
BGU VIII 1813 4892
BGU VIII 1814 4893
BGU VIII 1815 4894
BGU VIII 1816 4895 SKARSOULI (2020b), p. 193
BGU VIII 1817 4896
262 SOURCES

BGU VIII 1818 4897 BL 12
BGU VIII 1819 4898
BGU VIII 1820 4899
BGU VIII 1821 4900 BL 7; BL 9; BL 13
BGU VIII 1822 4901 BL 11
BGU VIII 1823 4902 BL 3
BGU VIII 1824 4903
BGU VIII 1825 4904 BL 3
BGU VIII 1826 4905
BGU VIII 1827 4906 BL 3; BL 5; BL 6; BL 11
BGU VIII 1828 4907
BGU VIII 1829 4908
BGU VIII 1830 4909
BGU VIII 1831 4910 BL 3; BL 5; BL 11
BGU VIII 1832 4911
BGU VIII 1833 4912 BL 3
BGU VIII 1834 4913
BGU VIII 1835 4914 BL 3
BGU VIII 1836 4915 BL 3
BGU VIII 1837 4916
BGU VIII 1838 4917
BGU VIII 1840 4919
BGU VIII 1841 4920
BGU VIII 1842 4921
BGU VIII 1843 4922 BL 4; BL 7
BGU VIII 1844 4923
BGU VIII 1845 4924
BGU VIII 1846 4925 BL 8; BL 13
BGU VIII 1847 4926
BGU VIII 1848 4927 BL 3
BGU VIII 1849 4928 BL 3
BGU VIII 1850 4929
BGU VIII 1851 4930
BGU VIII 1852 4931
BGU VIII 1853 4932
BGU VIII 1854 4933 BL 12
BGU VIII 1855 4934 BL 12
BGU VIII 1856 4935 BL 12
BGU VIII 1857 4936
BGU VIII 1858 4937 BL 3
BGU VIII 1859 4938
BGU VIII 1860 4939 SKARSOULI (2020a), p. 176
BGU VIII 1861 4940
BGU VIII 1863 4942
BGU VIII 1864 4943
BGU VIII 1865 4944
BGU VIII 1866 4945
BGU VIII 1867 4946
BGU VIII 1868 4947
BGU VIII 1889 4968
BGU X 1902 8298 BL 11
BGU X 1903 8299
BGU X 1904 8300
BGU X 1905 8297
SOURCES 263

BGU X 1906 8301
BGU X 1907 4970 BL 6
BGU X 1908 8302 SKARSOULI (2020a), p. 175
BGU X 1909 8294
BGU XIII 2252 9660 BL 7
BGU XIV 2373 3993
BGU XIV 2374 3994 BL 11
BGU XIV 2375 3995 BL 13
BGU XVIII 2731 69805 BL 12
BGU XVIII 2732 69806 BL 12; ARMONI (2001a), p. 171-173; ARMONI
(2012), p. 99; KALTSAS (2009), p. 187-189
BGU XX 2845 316208
BGU XX 2847 4844
CdE 42 p. 355-359 115834 THOMPSON (1967) REEKMANS (1968)
Chrest. Wilck. 11 b 376 KALTSAS (2010), p. 220
Chrest. Wilck. 198 41511 BL 9
Chrest. Wilck. 224 a 41799 BL 4; BL 11
Chrest. Wilck. 224 b 8699 BL 4; BL 11
Chrest. Wilck. 224 c 8700 BL 4; BL 11; P. Heid. VII, p. 252
Chrest. Wilck. 304 41800
Chrest. Wilck. 312 11665
C. Ord. Ptol. 33 44154
CPJ IV 577 851556 More comprehensive edition by THOMAS
KRUSE in P. Münch. IV forthcoming
CPR XXVIII 11 117591 STERN (2016), p. 32-34
I. Prose 19 5950
I. Prose 22 6331 +
103007
I. Prose 24 6403
I. Prose 32 8160
I. Prose 33 7228
I. Prose 34 7229
I. Prose 37 7237
I. Prose 38 7230
I. Prose 39 7231 ZELLMANN-ROHRER (2019), p. 135-136
I. Prose 42 6605
I. Prose 43 8805
I. Prose 44 7232
O. Dem. Narm. III 116 91462
O. Hor 1 48969 Dem. BL
O. Hor 21 48988
O. Hor 26 48993 Dem. BL
O. Hor 31 48438
O. Hor Gr. E 44762
O. Ifao Edfou Dem. 632 128947 DEVAUCHELLE & WIDMER (2009)
O. Mus. Hist. nat. Lyon 58182 GORRE (2010) GONIS (2004), p. 195
inv. 807 + O. Ashm.
Shelt. 42
O. Strasb. I 772 44031 BL 9
O. Strasb. Dem. 246 316909 To be published in Documents
ined. démotiques de Strasbourg series
O. Tempeleide 1 50081 Dem. BL; Dem. BL addenda 1
O. Tempeleide 2 50414 Dem. BL
264 SOURCES

O. Tempeleide 6 50418
P. Alex. p. 18 no. 447 77928
P. Alex. p. 18 no. 559 5017
P. Amh. Gr. II 33 8669 BL 1; BL 2; BL 8; BL 9
P. Amh. Gr. II 34 a + b 8670 BL 1; BL 9
Ro
P. Amh. Gr. II 34 c 8671 BL 1; BL 9
P. Amh. Gr. II 34 d 8672
P. Amh. Gr. II 35 8621 BL 1; BL 3; BL 4; BL 9; BL 11
P. Athen. 5 77951
P. Athen. 6 77952
P. Athen. 7 44007 BL 3; BL 7
P. Berl. Eleph. II 13567 48634
P. Berl. Zill. 1 5563 BL 3; BL 5; BL 7
P. Berlin 13497 89413 PORTEN & YARDENI (1986), A4.9
P. Berlin 13608 308 SPIEGELBERG (1930) Dem. BL; Dem. BL addenda 2
P. Berlin Dem. 15592 91946 To be published by GERT
ined. BAETENS & MARK DEPAUW
P. Bingen 35 44500
P. Bingen 44 78024 BL 12
P. BM Dem. 10650 369018 WINKLER (2020)
P. BM Siut 10591 Vo 53821 BAETENS & DEPAUW (2015)
col. i-ii
P. BM Siut 10591 Vo 53822 Dem. BL; Dem. BL addenda 1; Dem. BL
col. iii addenda 2; BAETENS & DEPAUW (2015)
P. BM Siut 10598 43409 Dem. BL
P. Bouriant 62 30781
P. Brooklyn Dem. 5 69352
P. B.U.G. inv. 260 703104 AZZARELLO & REITER (2016)
P. Bürgsch. 13 5858 Dem. BL
P. Bürgsch. 13 bis a 2789 Dem. BL; Dem. BL addenda 2
P. Bürgsch. 13 bis b 44604 Dem. BL; Dem. BL addenda 2
P. Cairo 10361 282 P. Lond. VII, p. 275
P. Cairo 10362 99286 P. Lond. VII, p. 275
P. Cairo II 30960 552 Dem. BL; Dem. BL addenda 1
P. Cairo II 30976 567 Dem. BL addenda 1; BAETENS (2014b), p. 37
P. Cairo II 31020 + 609 Dem. BL addenda 1; BAETENS (2014b), p. 45-
31057 Ro 46
P. Cairo II 31221 44349 Dem. BL; BAETENS (2014b), p. 57
P. Cairo Collège de la 566331 FOURNET (2015), p. 83-91 no. 1
Sainte-Famille inv. 1
SOURCES 265

P. Cairo Zen. I 59021 681 BL 8; BL 10; BL 13; P. L. Bat. XXI;
PANAGOPOULOU (2016); TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. I 59034 694 BL 8; BL 9; BL 10; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon
addenda
P. Cairo Zen. I 59048 708 BL 13
P. Cairo Zen. I 59054 2296
P. Cairo Zen. I 59075 730 BL 8; BL 10; BL 13; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon
addenda
P. Cairo Zen. I 59080 735 BL 9; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. I 59121 770
P. Cairo Zen. I 59122 771
P. Cairo Zen. II 59145 793 BL 9; BL 11
P. Cairo Zen. II 59151 799 P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Cairo Zen. II 59167 814
P. Cairo Zen. II 59172 818 P. L. Bat. XXI; HAUBEN (2019), p. 197-204
P. Cairo Zen. II 59218 863 BL 8; BL 11; BL 13; TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. II 59224 869 P. Cairo Zen. IV 59224
P. Cairo Zen. II 59236 881 BL 11; BL 13
P. Cairo Zen. II 59294 938 BL 13
P. Cairo Zen. II 59297 941 P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Cairo Zen. III 59301 945 P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Cairo Zen. III 59307 951
P. Cairo Zen. III 59341 984 BL 13
P. Cairo Zen. III 59403 1045 P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. III 59426 1066 BL 8; TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 1083 P. Cairo Zen. IV 59443
P. Cairo Zen. III 59445 1085 BL 8; BL 9; TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. III 59451 1090 BL 11; P. L. Bat. XXI
266 SOURCES

P. Cairo Zen. III 59466 1104 P. L. Bat. XXI; BERNEKER (1934)
P. Cairo Zen. III 59484 1122 BL 8; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. III 59495 1133 BL 8; BL 13; P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Cairo Zen. III 59520 1157 BL 12; P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Cairo Zen. III 59526 1163 TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59566 1200
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59618 1250 P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59620 1252 BL 8; BL 9; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon
addenda
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59621 1253 BL 8; BL 9; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon
addenda
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59649 1280 BL 9; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59650 1281 BL 8; BL 11; TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59651 1282 BL 12
P. Cairo Zen. IV 59657 1988 FERRETTI, SCHUBERT & TOMCIK (2017)
+ P. Mich. Zen. 89
SOURCES 267

P. Cairo Zen. IV 59659 1290 BL 11; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
+ P. Col. Zen. II 92
P. Cairo Zen. V 59826 1450
P. Cairo Zen. V 59832 1456 BL 13; P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Cairo Zen. V 59838 1462 BL 8; BL 10; TM Zenon addenda
P. Cairo Zen. V 59852 1476 P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Carlsberg Dem. 486 873618 Unpublished
ined.
P. Col. VIII 213 10547
P. Col. Zen. I 6 1728 BL 8; BL 13; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon
addenda
P. Col. Zen. I 9 1730 BL 8; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
P. Col. Zen. I 11 1732 BL 8; BL 9; BL 13; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon
addenda
P. Col. Zen. I 18 1738 P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
P. Col. Zen. I 19 1739 BL 10; BOEP 1.1
P. Col. Zen. I 44 1761 P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Col. Zen. I 51 1767 P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
P. Col. Zen. I 53 1769 CUVIGNY (2017), p. 436-437
P. Col. Zen. II 64 1779
P. Col. Zen. II 72 1787
P. Col. Zen. II 83 1796 BL 13; P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Col. Zen. II 86 1799
P. Col. Zen. II 90 1803 P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
P. Col. Zen. II 96 1809
P. Col. Zen. II 105 1818
P. Col. Zen. II 107 1820
P. Col. Zen. II 115 c 2320
P. Col. Zen. II 119 43255 BACKHUYS (2018b), p. 307-308
P. Coll. Youtie I 10 78159
P. Coll. Youtie I 12 5038 KÄPPEL (2016), p. 280-281; KÄPPEL (2017)
P. Coll. Youtie I 16 5041 BL 12
P. Congr. XV 9 78819
P. Dem. Mon. 5 45930 BAETENS & ANGLES (2019)
P. Dion. 9 3092 BL 9
P. Dion. 10 3093
P. Dion. 11 3094 BL 9; ALONSO (2012)
P. Dion. 12 3095 ALONSO (2012)
P. Diosk. 1 44717
P. Diosk. 2 44718
P. Diosk. 3 44719
P. Diosk. 4 44720
P. Diosk. 5 44721
P. Diosk. 6 44722 JÖRDENS (2010), p. 248-252
P. Diosk. 7 44723
P. Diosk. 8 43832 BL 13
P. Diosk. 9 44724
P. Diosk. 10 44725
P. Diosk. 11 44726
P. Diosk. 12 44727
P. Dryton 31 286 BL 12
P. Dryton 32 287
P. Dryton 33 253 BL 3; BL 7; BL 8; BL 9
P. Dryton 33 bis 252
268 SOURCES

P. Dryton 34 284
P. Duke inv. 325 131855 BAUSCHATZ (2016), p. 35-36 BACKHUYS (2018b), p. 310; LANCIERS (2018a),
p. 376-380
P. Duke inv. 327 131856 BAUSCHATZ (2016), p. 38-39 LANCIERS (2018a), p. 376-380
P. Duke inv. 331 131860 BAUSCHATZ (2016), p. 43 LANCIERS (2018a), p. 376-380
P. Duke inv. 360 58468 BAUSCHATZ (2005), p. 194-196
P. Eleph. Gr. 8 5842 BL 1
P. Eleph. Gr. 17 5850 BL 1; BL 9; BL 12
P. Eleph. Gr. 19 5852 BL 1; BL 2; BOEP 7.1
P. Eleph. Gr. 20 5853
P. Eleph. Gr. 24 5856 BL 1
P. Eleph. Gr. 25 5857 BL 6; BL 8; BL 10
P. Eleph. Gr. 27 a + P. 44603 BL 2; BL 12
Eleph. Dem. 10
P. Eleph. Wagner 2 78214 BL 12; BAETENS (2016), p. 283
P. Enteux. 1 3279 BL 3; BL 6
P. Enteux. 2 3280 BL 2; BL 3; BL 4
P. Enteux. 3 3281
P. Enteux. 4 3282 BL 3; BL 6; BL 8
P. Enteux. 6 3283 BL 3; BL 13
P. Enteux. 7 3284 BL 2
P. Enteux. 8 3285 BL 11
P. Enteux. 9 3286 BL 2
P. Enteux. 10 3287 BL 6
P. Enteux. 11 3288 BL 3
P. Enteux. 12 3289 BL 6; BL 8; BL 10; BL 13; MIRIZIO (2016), p.
268-270
P. Enteux. 13 3290
P. Enteux. 14 3291 BL 2; BL 3; BACKHUYS (2019), p. 276-278
P. Enteux. 15 3292 BL 2; BL 3; BL 4; BL 7
P. Enteux. 16 3293 BL 7
P. Enteux. 17 3294 BL 3; BL 6
P. Enteux. 18 3295
P. Enteux. 19 3278
P. Enteux. 20 2981
P. Enteux. 21 3296
P. Enteux. 22 3297 BL 7; BL 13
P. Enteux. 24 3299
P. Enteux. 25 3300 BL 5
P. Enteux. 26 3301 BL 2; BL 3; BL 5; BL 8; BL 13
P. Enteux. 27 3302 THOMPSON (2012)
P. Enteux. 28 3303
P. Enteux. 29 3304
P. Enteux. 30 3305 BL 3; BL 4; BL 7
P. Enteux. 31 3306
P. Enteux. 32 3307
P. Enteux. 33 3308 BL 3; BL 7; BL 12
P. Enteux. 34 3309 BL 5
P. Enteux. 35 3310
P. Enteux. 36 3311 BL 3
P. Enteux. 37 3312
P. Enteux. 38 3313 BL 2
SOURCES 269

P. Enteux. 39 3314
P. Enteux. 40 3315
P. Enteux. 41 3316 BL 2; BL 5
P. Enteux. 42 3317 BL 2
P. Enteux. 43 3318
P. Enteux. 44 3319
P. Enteux. 45 3320 BL 6
P. Enteux. 46 3321
P. Enteux. 49 3324 BL 2; BL 5
P. Enteux. 50 3325 BL 9
P. Enteux. 51 3326 BL 6; BL 7
P. Enteux. 52 3327 BL 2; BL 6
P. Enteux. 53 3328 BL 2
P. Enteux. 54 3329 BL 2; BL 6
P. Enteux. 55 3330 BL 4
P. Enteux. 56 3331
P. Enteux. 57 3332 BL 2
P. Enteux. 58 3333 BL 12
P. Enteux. 59 3334
P. Enteux. 60 3335 BL 13
P. Enteux. 61 3336 BL 13
P. Enteux. 62 3337 BL 2; BL 3; BL 13
P. Enteux. 63 3338 BL 2; BL 3; BL 11
P. Enteux. 64 3339 BL 2; BL 3
P. Enteux. 65 3340 BL 2; BL 4; BL 5; BL 7; BL 8
P. Enteux. 66 3341
P. Enteux. 67 3342
P. Enteux. 68 3343 BL 3
P. Enteux. 69 3344
P. Enteux. 70 3345
P. Enteux. 71 3346
P. Enteux. 72 3347 BL 3
P. Enteux. 73 3348 BL 11
P. Enteux. 74 3349 BL 2; BL 3; BL 8
P. Enteux. 75 3350 BL 5
P. Enteux. 76 3351
P. Enteux. 77 3352 BL 8
P. Enteux. 78 3353 BL 2; BL 3
P. Enteux. 79 3354 BL 2; BL 12; BL 13; HUE-ARCÉ (2018)
P. Enteux. 80 3355 BL 3; BL 6
P. Enteux. 81 3356 BL 3
P. Enteux. 82 3357 BL 3; BL 8; BL 9; BL10; BL 12; BL 13; HUE-
ARCÉ (2018)
P. Enteux. 83 3358 BL 3; BL 10; BL 13
P. Enteux. 84 Ro 3214
P. Enteux. 85 3387 BL 3; BL 6
P. Enteux. 86 3386 BL 2; BALAMOSHEV (2011), p. 16-17
P. Enteux. 87 3385
P. Enteux. 88 3384 BL 2
P. Enteux. 89 3383 BL 6
P. Enteux. 90 3382
P. Enteux. 91 3381 BL 6; BL 13
270 SOURCES

P. Enteux. 92 3380
P. Enteux. 93 3379
P. Enteux. 94 3378 BL 4
P. Enteux. 95 3377
P. Enteux. 96 3376 BL 3
P. Enteux. 97 3375 BL 5; BL 7
P. Enteux. 98 3374
P. Enteux. 99 3373 BL 3
P. Enteux. 100 3372 BL 6; BL 8; BL 10
P. Enteux. 101 3371 BL 6
P. Enteux. 102 3370
P. Enteux. 103 3369
P. Enteux. 104 3368 BL 6; BL 8; BL 10
P. Enteux. 105 3367
P. Enteux. 106 3366 BL 4; BL 7
P. Enteux. 107 3365 BL 3
P. Enteux. 108 3364
P. Enteux. 109 3363
P. Enteux. 110 3362
P. Enteux. 111 3361
P. Enteux. 112 3360
P. Enteux. 113 3359
P. Enteux. A 3388
P. Enteux. B 3389
P. Erasm. I 2 5049 ARMONI (2009), p. 171-172
P. Erasm. I 3 5050 BOEP 3.1
P. Erasm. I 4 44709
P. Erasm. I 5 5051 BORRELLI (2019), p. 167-168
P. Erasm. I 11 5048 BL 12
P. Erasm. I 17 44712 BL 8; BL 13
P. Erbstreit 13 5882 BL 1; BL 2; BL 3; BL 8; BL 11
P. Erbstreit 16 156 BL 2; BL 6; BL 7; BL 8; BL 9; BL 10; BL 11
P. Erbstreit 17 154
P. Erbstreit 18 113817
P. Fay. 11 8084 BL 1
P. Fay. 12 8334 BL 1; KALTSAS (2010), p. 215
P. Fay. 31 10862 BL 9
P. Fitzhugh Dem. 1 51408 REYMOND (1972), p. 254-260 no. Dem. BL
1
P. Fitzhugh Dem. 2 51409 REYMOND (1972), p. 260-267 no. Dem. BL; BAETENS (2016), p. 284
2
P. Flor. I 2 l. 13-40 23526 BL 1
P. Flor. I 2 l. 47-67 23527 BL 1
P. Flor. I 2 l. 68-90 23528
P. Flor. I 2 l. 91-113 23529
P. Flor. I 2 l. 114-135 23530 BL 1
P. Flor. I 2 l. 147-162 23531 BL 1
P. Flor. I 2 l. 177-192 23532 BL 1
P. Flor. I 2 l. 209-229 23533 BL 1
P. Flor. I 2 l. 240-254 23534 BL 1; BL 2
P. Flor. I 2 l. 261-279 23535 BL 1
P. Fordham inv. 5 129892 CLAYTOR (2011) DUTTENHÖFER in P. Yale IV 143 forthcoming
P. Fouad 16 5093 BL 3; BL 6
P. Frankf. 3 5098 BL 2; BL 13
P. Frankf. 5 5099 BL 4; BL 6; BL 7
SOURCES 271

P. Frankf. 7 5101 BL 2; BL 6; BL 7; KRAGLER (1980)
P. Freib. IV 75 2515 CLARYSSE (1988b), p. 19-21
P. Gen. III 126 43084 BL 12
P. Gen. III 128 43079
P. Giss. Univ. I 1 44587 BL 2; BL 9
P. Giss. Univ. I 2 8175 BL 2; BL 10; BL 12
P. Giss. Univ. I 3 42854
P. Götterbriefe 8 48778 Dem. BL
P. Grad. 18 5128
P. Grenf. I 11 + P. Heid. 247 SEIDER (1990), p. 390-391 no. 5 BL 1; BL 2; BL 3; BL 4; BL 6; BL 7; BL 8; BL 9
Gr. inv. 1288
P. Grenf. I 37 261 BL 1; BL 6; KALTSAS (2010), p. 215
P. Grenf. I 38 262 BL 1; BL 3
P. Grenf. I 42 266 BL 6; BL 7
P. Gurob 5 5868 BL 2; BL 3; BL 7; BL 8
P. Gurob 8 5871 BL 7
P. Gurob 10 43324 BL 7
P. Hal. 9 Vo 78263
P. Hal. Kurth inv. II.b 1 383461 LEHMANN et al. (2014), p. 190
no. 208 & p. 312 pl. 22
P. Hal. Kurth inv. II.b 3 383463 LEHMANN et al. (2014), p. 191
Vo no. 210 Vo & p. 314 pl. 25 Vo
P. Hamb. I 92 5133 BL 8
P. Hamb. III 202 78269 BL 9
P. Hamb. IV 237 43303
P. Hamb. IV 238 43304
P. Heid. Dem. 695 ined. 454 Unpublished
P. Heid. Gr. inv. 5017 128479 ARMONI (2005) ARMONI (2009), p. 172-173
Vo
P. Heid. Gr. VI 376 3073
P. Heid. Gr. VI 377 3074
P. Heid. Gr. VI 378 3075
P. Heid. Gr. VI 379 3076 BL 11; BL 12
P. Heid. Gr. VI 381 3078
P. Heid. Gr. VI 382 3079
P. Heid. Gr. VII 390 41532
P. Heid. Gr. VII 391 78356
P. Heid. Gr. VII 392 8701 BL 11
P. Heid. Gr. VII 394 78357 BL 11; BL 12
P. Heid. Gr. VIII 412 47290
P. Heid. Gr. VIII 421 47299
P. Heid. Gr. IX 422 89277
P. Heid. Gr. IX 423 89278
P. Heid. Gr. IX 431 89286
P. Heid. Gr. IX 432 89287
P. Heid. Gr. IX 433 89288
P. Hels. I 1 5138 BL 9; BL 12; BL 13
P. Hels. I 2 5139 BL 12; BL 13
P. Hels. I 9 5144 BL 9; BL 12
P. Hels. I 10 5145 BL 9; BL 12
272 SOURCES

P. Hels. I 11 5146 BL 12
P. Hels. I 12 5147 BL 9; BL 12
P. Hels. I 13 5148
P. Hels. I 14 5149 BL 9; BL 12
P. Hels. I 15 5150
P. Hels. I 16 5151
P. Hels. I 17 5152
P. Hels. I 18 5153
P. Hels. I 19 5154
P. Hels. I 20 5155
P. Hels. I 31 5166 BL 9; BL 12; BL 13
P. Hels. I 36 5171 BL 11
P. Hels. I 37 5172
P. Hibeh I 33 7816 BL 2
P. Hibeh I 34 8186 BL 11; BL 12
P. Hibeh I 35 8187 BL 1; BL 9
P. Hibeh I 36 8188
P. Hibeh I 37 7818
P. Hibeh I 57 8207
P. Hibeh I 72 8221 BL 2; BL 3; BL 9; BL 11
P. Hibeh I 144 8261
P. Hibeh II 201 5185 BL 4
P. Hibeh II 202 5186 BL 3; BL 4
P. Hibeh II 203 5187 BL 9; BL 11; BL 12
P. Hibeh II 235 5195
P. Hibeh II 236 5196 BL 12
P. Iand. VII 134 5228
P. Iand. inv. 398 218351 BALAMOSHEV (2015)
P. Iand. Zen. 30 110082
P. Iand. Zen. 47 110099
P. Iand. Zen. 48 110100
P. Iand. Zen. 50 110102
P. Köln Gr. III 140 3174 BL 8
P. Köln Gr. V 216 2482 BL 11; P. Heid. VII, p. 45
P. Köln Gr. V 223 3184 BL 8; BL 9; BL 10
P. Köln Gr. VI 261 2486
P. Köln Gr. VI 270 3200
P. Köln Gr. VI 272 3202 BAETENS (2016), p. 284-285
P. Köln Gr. VII 314 3207
P. Köln Gr. VIII 341 41533 BL 12
P. Köln Gr. X 413 47274 BL 13
P. Köln Gr. XI 452 112487
P. Köln Gr. XI 455 112490
P. Köln Gr. XII 476 128728 CLARYSSE (2017), p. 259
P. Köln Gr. XII 479 128733
P. Köln Gr. XIII 515 219332
P. Köln Gr. XIII 520 219336 BACKHUYS (2014), p. 199
SOURCES 273

P. Köln Dem. 5684 642675 Unpublished
ined.
P. Leit. 3 11614 BL 8
P. Lille Gr. I 6 3213 BL 1; BL 7
P. Lille Gr. I 8 3215 BL 1; BL 6
P. Lille Gr. I 9 3216 BL 1
P. Lille Gr. I 49 3250 BL 2; BL 7
P. Lille Dem. I 12 4461 Dem. BL; ZIEGLER (1996), p. 161
P. Lille Dem. I 13 4462 Dem. BL
P. Lips. II 124 78440 BL 12
P. Lips. II 125 44410
P. Lips. II 126 78441
P. Loeb 40 48850 Dem. BL
P. Lond. II 220 Ro 5888 BL 1; BL 2
P. Lond. III 887 78481 BL 1
P. Lond. VII 1954 1517 BL 8; BL 9
P. Lond. VII 1955 1518
P. Lond. VII 1980 1543 P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Lond. VII 1981 2502 P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Lond. VII 2009 1571
P. Lond. VII 2017 1579 BL 10
P. Lond. VII 2029 1591
P. Lond. VII 2031 1593 TM Zenon addenda
P. Lond. VII 2036 1598
P. Lond. VII 2038 1600
P. Lond. VII 2039 1601
P. Lond. VII 2041 1603 BL 8
P. Lond. VII 2045 1607
P. Lond. VII 2046 1608 BL 8; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
P. Lond. VII 2047 1609
P. Lond. VII 2050 1612 BL 10
P. Lond. VII 2052 1614 BL 8; BL 9
P. Lond. VII 2054 1616
P. Lond. VII 2055 1617 BL 9
P. Lond. VII 2072 1633
P. Lond. VII 2074 1635
P. Lond. VII 2096 1657
P. Lond. VII 2102 1663 TM Zenon addenda
P. Lond. VII 2188 251 BL 5; BL 7; BL 9; BL 11; BL 13
P. Louvre II 98 88764 BL 13
P. Lund VI 1 6214
P. Med. Bar. inv. 2 Ro 4149 BALCONI (2012)
P. Med. Bar. inv. 3 Ro 56433 CRISCUOLO (2004), p. 7-21 CLARYSSE & CRISCUOLO (2005)
P. Med. Bar. inv. 8 Ro 45138 CRISCUOLO (2004), p. 21-23 CLARYSSE & CRISCUOLO (2005); VANDEMOORTELE
(1998), p. 173
P. Med. I 30 6224
274 SOURCES

P. Merton I 5 5238 BL 4; BL 9; BL 11
P. Merton II 59 5240 BL 4; BL 7; BL 9; BL 12; BL 13
P. Meyer 1 5901 BL 1; BL 12
P. Mich. III 173 8337 BL 3; BL 12; LORBER (2017), p. 27-28
P. Mich. V 226 12067 WINKLER & ZELLMANN-ROHRER (2016)
P. Mich. V 231 12072 BL 3; BL 6; BL 11
P. Mich. XV 688 47503 BL 8
P. Mich. XVIII 773 8767
P. Mich. XVIII 778 8772 BL 12
P. Mich. XVIII 779 8773 BL 12
P. Mich. XVIII 780 a 8774 LANCIERS (2018b), p. 122
P. Mich. XVIII 780 b 8775
P. Mich. Zen. 29 1929 BL 8; BL 10; BL 13; P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Mich. Zen. 34 1934
P. Mich. Zen. 45 1945 TM Zenon addenda
P. Mich. Zen. 46 1946
P. Mich. Zen. 52 1952
P. Mich. Zen. 60 1960 BL 10; P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Mich. Zen. 67 1967 P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Mich. Zen. 71 1970
P. Mich. Zen. 75 l. 4-6 1974
P. Mich. Zen. 79 1978
P. Mich. Zen. 84 1983 BL 8; BL 12; P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Mich. Zen. 86 1985 BL 9
P. Mich. Zen. 87 1986 BL 8; BL 10; BL 13; TM Zenon addenda
P. Mich. Zen. 97 1996
P. Mich. Zen. 100 1999
P. Mich. Zen. 102 2001
P. Mil. Vogl. III 128 5247 BL 5; BL 7
P. Monts. Roca IV 66 219243 BACKHUYS (2018a); HAGEDORN (2020), p. 184;
KÄPPEL (2018)
P. Münch. III 50 5249
P. Münch. III 51 5250 BL 9
P. NYU II 45 6433 BACKHUYS (2019), p. 271-274
P. Oxf. 1 42959
P. Oxf. Griffith I 37 46947
P. Oxf. Griffith I 38 48879 Dem. BL
P. Oxf. Griffith I 39 48545 Dem. BL; CHAUFRAY (2009), p. 167-168
P. Oxf. Griffith I 40 48880 Dem. BL; Dem. BL addenda 1
P. Oxf. Griffith I 41 48881 Dem. BL addenda 2
P. Oxf. Griffith 873601 To be published by CAROLIN
without number 8 ARLT
ined.
P. Oxy. III 520 20650 BL 1; BL 5; BL 11
P. Oxy. X 1254 l. 14-34 21792
P. Oxy. XII 1465 43902
P. Paris 70 g 78701 BL 7
P. Petrie III 22 a = P. 7395 BL 1; BL 2; BL 7; STOLK (2011) p. 31-36
Petrie II 17.1
P. Petrie III 27 7405 BL 2; BAETENS (2016), p. 285
P. Petrie III 28 a = P. 7406 BL 4; BL 9
Petrie II 2.1
P. Petrie III 28 e 7410 BL 1; BL 3
SOURCES 275

P. Petrie III 29 a = P. 7411 BL 1; BL 4; BL 8
Petrie II 12.1
P. Petrie III 29 b = P. 7412 BL 1
Petrie II 12.2
P. Petrie III 29 c = P. 7413 BL 2
Petrie II 12.3 EE 2
P. Petrie III 29 d = P. 7414 BL 1
Petrie II 12.3 EE 4
P. Petrie III 29 e 7415
P. Petrie III 29 f 7416
P. Petrie III 29 g 7417
P. Petrie III 29 h 7418 BL 3
P. Petrie III 30 7420 UEBEL (1968), p. 249
P. Petrie III 31 7421 BL 1; BL 7; SB XX 14183; BAETENS (2016), p.
285-288; CLARYSSE & LANCIERS (1989), p. 126
P. Petrie III 32 a = P. 7422 BL 1
Petrie II 10.1
P. Petrie III 32 b = P. 7423
Petrie II 10.2
Petrie II 18.1
P. Petrie III 32 d 7425
P. Petrie III 32 e 4440
P. Petrie III 32 f 7426 BL 1; BL 9
P. Petrie III 32 g Ro a = 7427 BL 1
P. Petrie II 32.2 a
P. Petrie III 32 g Ro b = 7699 BL 1; BL 7; BL 8; BL 10; BL 12
P. Petrie II 32.2 b
P. Petrie III 33 = P. 7428 BL 1
Petrie II 23.2
P. Petrie III 34 a 7429 BL 7; BL 9
P. Petrie III 34 b = P. 7430 BL 3; BL 9
Petrie II 38 a
P. Petrie III 35 a = P. 7431 BL 1; BL 2
Petrie II 19.1
P. Petrie III 36 a Ro 7701 BL 8
P. Petrie III 36 a Vo 7433 BL 1; BL 3; BL 8
P. Petrie III 36 b = P. 7434 BL 1; BL 3; BL 6; BL 8; BL 9; BL 10
Petrie II 20
Petrie II 1
P. Petrie III 36 d = P. 7436
Petrie II 32.1
P. Petrie III 43.6 = P. 7445
Petrie II 9.5
P. Petrie III 68 a 7518 BL 7
P. Petrie III 68 b 7519 HAGEDORN (2003), p. 226-227
P. Petrie III 72 a 7525 BL 4; BL 6; BL 8; BL 9; CLARYSSE & HAUBEN
(1991), p. 53-54
P. Petrie III 72 b 7526 BL 7
P. Petrie III 72 c 7527 ZIEGLER (1999)
P. Petrie III 73 7529 BL 8
P. Petrie Kleon 13 7667
276 SOURCES

P. Petrie Kleon 20 = P. 7643
Petrie III 42 c 7 = P.
Petrie II 6
Petrie III 43.5 = P.
Petrie II 9.4
Petrie II 4.9
Petrie II 13.1
Petrie III 42 g 2 = P.
Petrie II 4.7
Petrie II 4.3
Petrie III 42 d 3 = P.
Petrie II 13.17
Petrie III 42 g 6 = P.
Petrie II 13.13
Petrie III 34 c
P. Polit. Iud. 1 44617
P. Polit. Iud. 2 44618
P. Polit. Iud. 3 44619 KUGLER (2016)
P. Polit. Iud. 4 44620 BL 12; KUGLER (2016)
P. Polit. Iud. 5 44621 KUGLER (2016)
P. Polit. Iud. 6 44622 BL 12
P. Polit. Iud. 7 44623 BL 12; KUGLER (2010)
P. Polit. Iud. 8 44624 BL 12
P. Polit. Iud. 9 44625 BL 12
P. Polit. Iud. 10 44626
P. Polit. Iud. 11 44627
P. Polit. Iud. 12 44628
P. Polit. Iud. 13 44629
P. Polit. Iud. 14 44630
P. Polit. Iud. 15 44631
P. Polit. Iud. 16 44632
P. Prag. II 124 8823
P. Princ. III 117 5908 BL 3; MASCELLARI (2009-2010); ZIEGLER
(1995), p. 193
P. Rainer Cent. 50 8604
SOURCES 277

P. Reinach Gr. II 97 78738
P. Ryl. Gr. II 66 a 5285
P. Ryl. Gr. II 68 5286 BL 1; BL 9; BL 12
P. Ryl. Gr. II 69 5287 BL 1; BL 9
P. Ryl. Gr. II 256 78743
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 563 2419 BL 8; BL 13; TM Zenon addenda
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 569 2425 P. L. Bat. XXI
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 570 2426
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 577 5297 BL 3; BL 4; BL 6
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 578 5298 BL 3; BL 4
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 579 44149 BL 3; BL 6
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 668 78759
P. Ryl. Gr. IV 669 42982 KALTSAS (2010), p. 215-216
P. Sakaon 51 13071
P. Sakaon 52 13072 BL 9
P. Sal. Gr. 2 495485 TEPEDINO GUERRA (2015)
P. Sijpesteijn 45 7883 BL 12; BL 13
P. Sorb. I 13 3128 BL 6
P. Sorb. III 94 4359
P. Sorb. III 99 118710
P. Sorb. III 103 121855
P. Sorb. III 104 121857
P. Sorb. III 105 2600
P. Sorb. III 106 2605 BL 9
P. Sorb. III 107 121858
P. Sorb. III 108 2603
P. Sorb. III 109 2601
P. Sorb. III 110 2602
P. Sorb. III 111 2604 BL 9; KOENEN (1989)
P. Sorb. III 112 121859
P. Sorb. III 113 121860
P. Sorb. III 114 121861
P. Sorb. III 115 121862
P. Sorb. III 116 121863
P. Sorb. III 119 121866
P. Sorb. III 125 121872
P. Sorb. III 126 121873
P. Sorb. III 127 121874
P. Sorb. III 128 121875 KALTSAS (forthcoming)
P. Sorb. III 133 121877 BAETENS (2016), p. 288-291
P. Sorb. IV 148 372048
P. Sorb. IV 149 44438
P. Stan. Class. 11 43272 CLARYSSE & FISCHER-BOVET
(2012), p. 61-63 no. 11
P. Strasb. Gr. II 91 3918 BL 9; BL 13; ZIEGLER (1996)
P. Strasb. Gr. II 96 3923 BL 13
P. Strasb. Gr. II 98 3925
P. Strasb. Gr. II 99 3926 BL 2; BL 11
P. Strasb. Gr. II 100 3927
P. Strasb. Gr. VI 564 3946 BL 8
P. Strasb. Gr. VII 624 3952 BL 10
P. Strasb. Gr. VII 644 3957
278 SOURCES

P. Strasb. Gr. VIII 701 3963 BL 9; BL 12
P. Strasb. Gr. VIII 702 3964
P. Strasb. Gr. VIII 781 3972 BL 8; BL 9; BL 13
P. Syrac. 262 316183 BAETENS & DEPAUW (2016)
P. Tarich. 1 316241
P. Tarich. 2 316242
P. Tarich. 3 316243
P. Tarich. 4 a 316244
P. Tarich. 4 b 316245
P. Tarich. 5 316246
P. Tarich. 6 a 316247
P. Tarich. 6 b 316248
P. Tarich. 7 316249
P. Tarich. 8 316250
P. Tarich. 9 a 316251
P. Tarich. 9 b 316252
P. Tarich. 10 316253
P. Tarich. 11 316254
P. Tarich. 12 316255
P. Tarich. 13 316256
P. Tarich. 15 316294
P. TCD Pap. Gr. env. 8832 BAETENS & CLARYSSE (2016)
86/87 Ro
P. TCD Pap. Gr. env. 380607 BAETENS (2014a) BAETENS (2016), p. 292-293; ARMONI (2020),
127 p. 198-200
P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 873602 Description in DI CERBO (2004),
4579.12 ined. p. 117-118; to be published in
Fouilles franco-italiennes series
P. Tebt. Dem. SCA 8334 873606 To be published in Fouilles
ined. franco-italiennes series
P. Tebt. I 18 3654 BL 11
P. Tebt. I 19 3655 BL 1; BL 2; BL 3; BL 7; BL 8
P. Tebt. I 24 3660 BL 1; BL 5; BL 7; BL 11; P. L. Bat. XXIX
P. Tebt. I 29 78767 BL 11
P. Tebt. I 30 3666 BL 3; MIRIZIO (2016), p. 258-261
P. Tebt. I 31 3667
P. Tebt. I 38 3674 BL 1; BL 3; BL 8; BL 9; BL 11; P. L. Bat. XXIX
P. Tebt. I 39 3675 BL 13
P. Tebt. I 40 3676 BL 13; P. L. Bat. XXIX; ARMONI (2012), p. 218
P. Tebt. I 41 78772 BL 6
SOURCES 279

P. Tebt. I 42 3678 BL 12; BLASCO-TORRES (2017), p. 256
P. Tebt. I 43 3679 BL 1; BL 2; BL 3; BL 7; BL 11; P. L. Bat. XXIX;
KALTSAS (2010), p. 217
P. Tebt. I 44 3680 BL 2
P. Tebt. I 45 3681 BL 11
P. Tebt. I 46 3682 BL 9; BOEP 1.2
P. Tebt. I 47 3683
P. Tebt. I 48 3684 BL 2; BL 8; BL 11
P. Tebt. I 49 3685
P. Tebt. I 50 3686 BL 13
P. Tebt. I 51 3687
P. Tebt. I 52 3688
P. Tebt. I 53 3689
P. Tebt. I 54 3690 BL 12
P. Tebt. I 58 3694 BL 1; BL 2; BL 5; BL 6; BL 7; BL 11
P. Tebt. I 71 3662 BL 3; BL 4; BL 7; BL 8; BL 11; P. L. Bat. XXIX
P. Tebt. I 78 3714 BL 3; BL 8; P. L. Bat. XXIX
P. Tebt. I 124 3760 BL 1; BL 3; BL 5; BL 11
P. Tebt. I 134 3770 BL 11; LANCIERS (2019)
P. Tebt. I 138 3773 BL 1
P. Tebt. I 183 3816
P. Tebt. I 230 3863 P. L. Bat. XXIX
P. Tebt. I 264 3893 P. L. Bat. XXIX
P. Tebt. II 283 42986
P. Tebt. III 703 5315 BL 3; BL 6; BL 7; BL 8; BL 9; BL 10; BL 12; BL
13
P. Tebt. III 725 7836
P. Tebt. III 739 5342 BL 3; BL 8; BL 9
P. Tebt. III 740 Vo 5343
P. Tebt. III 741 5344
P. Tebt. III 769 5362
P. Tebt. III 770 5363
P. Tebt. III 771 a 7849 STOOP (2014), p. 187-188 no. 1 BL 7; HAGEDORN (2014), p. 187-188
P. Tebt. III 771 b 341742 STOOP (2014), p. 188-193 no. 2 BL 7; HAGEDORN (2014), p. 187-188
P. Tebt. III 772 5364
P. Tebt. III 773 Ro 7850 BL 6
Greek
P. Tebt. III 775 5366
P. Tebt. III 776 7851 BL 8; BL 10; LANCIERS (2018b), p. 122
P. Tebt. III 777 7852
P. Tebt. III 779 5367
P. Tebt. III 780 5368
P. Tebt. III 781 5369 BL 11
P. Tebt. III 782 5370 BL 9
P. Tebt. III 783 7853
P. Tebt. III 784 7854
P. Tebt. III 785 5371 BL 3
P. Tebt. III 786 5372 BL 12
P. Tebt. III 787 5373 BL 12
P. Tebt. III 788 5374 BL 3
P. Tebt. III 789 5375
P. Tebt. III 790 5376 BL 8; FISCHER-BOVET (2014), p. 148
P. Tebt. III 791 5377
P. Tebt. III 792 5378
P. Tebt. III 793 5379 BL 3; BL 4; BL 8; BERNINI (2010), p. 171-174
280 SOURCES

P. Tebt. III 794 5380 BL 3
P. Tebt. III 795 7855
P. Tebt. III 796 5381
P. Tebt. III 797 7856
P. Tebt. III 798 7857 BL 3; BL 9
P. Tebt. III 799 5382
P. Tebt. III 800 5383 BL 4; SKARSOULI (2020b), p. 193-196
P. Tebt. III 802 5385 BL 6
P. Tebt. III 803 5386 BL 8
P. Tebt. III 804 5387
P. Tebt. III 805 5388
P. Tebt. III 806 5389 BL 7; BL 11
P. Tebt. III 808 5391 BL 3; BL 8
P. Tebt. III 812 5393
P. Tebt. III 813 5394 BL 3
P. Tebt. III 815 7752 BL 3; BL 5; BL 6; BL 7; BL 8; BL 9; BL 10; BL
11
P. Tebt. III 895 5445
P. Tebt. III 933 7828
P. Tebt. III 934 5460
P. Tebt. III 936 5461
P. Tebt. III 951 7986 BL 6
P. Tebt. III 952 5468 BL 11
P. Tebt. III 953 5469
P. Tebt. III 954 5470
P. Tebt. III 957 7987 BL 5
P. Tebt. III 958 5473
P. Tebt. III 959 5474
P. Tebt. III 960 7988
P. Tebt. III 961 5475
P. Tebt. III 962 7989
P. Tebt. III 963 7990
P. Tebt. III 964 5476
P. Tebt. III 965 5477
P. Tebt. III 966 5478
P. Tebt. III 967 7991
P. Tebt. IV 1094 3761
P. Tebt. IV 1095 3762
P. Tebt. IV 1096 3763
P. Tebt. IV 1097 3907 P. L. Bat. XXIX
P. Tebt. IV 1098 3908 P. L. Bat. XXIX
P. Tebt. Pad. 10 412064
P. Tebt. Pad. 15 412069
P. Texas inv. 1 873600 Publication by DAVID MARTINEZ
forthcoming
P. Texas inv. 6 131719 MARTINEZ (2011a), p. 207-214
P. Thrace 1 97786 IOANNIDOU (2006) P. Tarich., p. 46.
P. Tor. Amen. 7 3597 BL 9
P. Tor. Amen. 8 3598 BL 9
P. Tor. Choach. 3 3591 BL 3
P. Tor. Choach. 5 a 3594 BL 3
P. Tor. Choach. 5 b 3595 BL 3
P. Tor. Choach. 8 a 3571
P. Tor. Choach. 8 b 3638
SOURCES 281

P. Tor. Choach. 11 bis 3562 BL 2; BL 3; BL 6; BL 10
P. Tor. Choach. 12 3563 BL 3; BL 4; BL 9; BL 13
P. Turku 1 8087 BL 10; BL 11; BL 12
P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 41560
Ro BL 11
P. Turku 15 41619 BL 11
P. Turku 36 41501
P. UB Trier S 188-44 111679 KRAMER (2007).
P. Vindob. Barbara 47288 HARRAUER & PINTAUDI (2012)
inv. 34 P. Sorb. III, p. 97, 120
P. Vindob. G 56637 703255 STERN (2016), p. 34-45 no. 3
P. Vindob. G 56639 703254 STERN (2016), p. 22-32 no. 1
P. Vindob. G 60501 699704 LÁDA & PAPATHOMAS (2015)
P. Würzb. 4 5532 BL 8; BL 12
P. Würzb. 5 5533
P. Yale I 46 5538 BL 7
P. Yale I 53 41798
P. Yale I 56 5540 BL 7
P. Yale I 57 5541 BL 8; ARMONI (2003), p. 260; KALTSAS (2009),
p. 187
P. Yale IV 138 873593 To be published by RUTH
DUTTENHÖFER
DUTTENHÖFER
DUTTENHÖFER
DUTTENHÖFER
DUTTENHÖFER
DUTTENHÖFER
DUTTENHÖFER
P. Yale IV 145 79335 DUTTENHÖFER (1998); new
edition by RUTH DUTTENHÖFER
in P. Yale IV
DUTTENHÖFER
DUTTENHÖFER
DUTTENHÖFER
DUTTENHÖFER
DUTTENHÖFER
P. Zauzich 60 48602 Dem. BL addenda 2
P. Zen. Pestm. 17 1848
P. Zen. Pestm. 43 1874 BL 8; BOEP 8.1
282 SOURCES

PSI III 166 8354 BL 8; BL 9; BL 11; KALTSAS (2010), p. 216
PSI III 167 5544 SKARSOULI (2020b), p. 191-193
PSI III 168 5545 BL 1
PSI III 169 5546 BL 3
PSI III 170 5547 BL 1
PSI III 171 5548 BL 1; BL 11
PSI III 172 44132 BL 1; BL 11
PSI III 173 43330 BL 1; BL 11; ARMONI (2003) p. 259-260
PSI IV 326 2023 BL 9; BL 10; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon
addenda
addenda
PSI IV 352 2040 P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI IV 378 2062 BL 10
PSI IV 383 2067 BL 11; BL 13
PSI IV 384 2068
PSI IV 393 2077 BL 7; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
PSI IV 399 2082 BL 10; BL 12; P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI IV 400 2083 BL 10; BL 11; P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI IV 402 2085 BL 10; P. L. Bat. XXI
addenda
PSI IV 408 2091
PSI IV 409 a 2092 P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI IV 412 2095 BL 13; P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI IV 413 2096 BL 8
PSI IV 414 2097
PSI IV 416 2099 BL 9; BL 10
PSI IV 419 2102
PSI IV 423 2106 BL 10
PSI IV 424 2107 BL 10; BL 12
PSI V 488 2119 BL 8; BL 10; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon
addenda
PSI V 510 2133 P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI V 525 2147
PSI V 527 2149
PSI V 528 2150
PSI V 529 2151 BL 9; P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI V 532 2154
PSI V 533 2155 BL 1; P. L. Bat. XXI; PSI VI, p. xvi-xvii; TM
Zenon addenda
PSI V 538 2160
PSI V 539 2161 BL 10; P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI V 541 2163 BL 13
PSI VI 551 2171 BL 10; P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI VI 571 2185 P. L. Bat. XXI
SOURCES 283

PSI VI 589 2199
PSI VI 591 2201 BL 10
PSI VI 593 2203 BL 10
PSI VI 595 2205
PSI VI 599 2209 BL 8; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
PSI VI 603 2212 BL 10; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
PSI VI 611 2220 BL 9
PSI VI 656 2257 BL 8; BL 10; TM Zenon addenda
PSI VII 815 5565 BL 2; BL 7; MARTHOT (2012), p. 488
PSI VII 816 44190 BL 27; MARTHOT (2012), p. 488
PSI VIII 949 41455
PSI VIII 968 43477 BL 12
PSI VIII 976 2444 BL 10; P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI IX 1011 2448 BL 10; P. L. Bat. XXI
PSI XIII 1316 5582
PSI XIII 1317 5583
PSI XIV 1403 27051 BL 4
PSI XV 1512 44214
PSI XV 1514 8071 BL 13; ARMONI (2009), p. 172; HAGEDORN
(2009), p. 241-242
PSI Com. XI 4 220370
PSI Congr. XXI 6 8151 BL 11
PUG II 57 78854
PUG III 101 5594 BL 10; BL 12
PUG III 102 5595 BL 10; BL 12
PUG III 103 5596 BL 11; BL 12; BERTI (2007), p. 50
PUG III 104 5597 BERTI (2007), p. 50
PUG III 105 5598 BERTI (2007), p. 50
PUG III 106 5599 BERTI (2007), p. 50
PUG III 107 5600 BL 10
PUG III 108 5601 BL 13
PUG III 109 43237
PUG III 110 43238 BL 10
PUG III 111 43239 BL 10
PUG III 112 43240 BL 10; BL 11
PUG IV 141 703033 BAETENS & CLARYSSE (2017), p. 183-184
PUG IV 159 703050 BAETENS & CLARYSSE (2017), p. 186
SB I 4302 7125 BOTTI (1899), p. 66 no. 1 BL 7
SB I 4307 7130 BOTTI (1899), p. 68 no. 6
SB I 4309 7132 BOTTI (1899), p. 69 no. 9 BL 3; BL 4
SB III 6002 5645 CHABIARAS (1913), p. 18 BL 2; BL 3
SB III 6134 7199 SACHAU (1911), no. 47 BL 11
SB IV 7351 5688 WILCKEN (1927), p. 10-12
SB V 8009 6293 KORTENBEUTEL (1936)
SB V 8033 5706 COLLART & JOUGUET (1933) BL 3; BL 4; BL 5; BL 6
SB VI 9065 5721 WEGENER (1947) BL 5; BL 7; BL 8; BL 9
SB VI 9068 6195 BURIKS (1946) BL 5; BL 7; BL 8; BL 11; BL 13; SKARSOULI
(2020b), p. 191
SB VI 9108 5728 REEKMANS & VAN 'T DACK (1950)
SB VI 9123 6196 LENGER (1951) BL 5
SB VI 9209 6199 HOMBERT & PRÉAUX (1942a) BL 7
SB VI 9302 6212 BÖHM (1955) BL 4; BL 5; BL 7; BL 11
284 SOURCES

SB VI 9420 5774 LETRONNE, BRUNET DE PRESLE & BL 9
EGGER (1865), p. 174-175 no. 8
SB VI 9522 6227 BARTOLETTI et al. (1957), p. 185-
186 no. 5
SB VI 9537 6229 SEYFARTH (1958), p. 155-157 BL 8; SKARSOULI (2020a), p. 175
SB VI 9556 5787 LENGER (1954) GROTKAMP (2018), p. 65-66
SB VIII 9674 5946 UEBEL (1962a), p. 123-134
SB VIII 9681 5792 UEBEL (1962b)
SB VIII 9790 5954 MÜLLER (1961)
SB VIII 9792 5794 ALY (1961), p. 330-334 BL 5; BL 10
SB VIII 9800 5957 SEIDER (1938), p. 79-80 P. Köln XI, p. 82-83
SB X 10224 5912 DARIS (1966), p. 171-173 BL 8
SB X 10225 5913 DARIS (1966), p. 173-174 BL 8
SB X 10253 5798 UEBEL (1966), p. 40-41 BL 12
SB X 10260 4451 BROWNE (1966) BL 6
SB X 10271 5801 BOYAVAL (1966), p. 68-71 BL 6; KALTSAS (2010), p. 217-218
SB X 10273 5802 BOYAVAL (1966), p. 73-74 BL 7; BL 13
SB X 10452 45906 DE CENIVAL (1967), p. 99-104 BL 9; Dem. BL
SB XII 10770 4345 DARIS (1970) BL 7; BL 12
SB XII 10869 4376 BOYAVAL (1973), p. 274-275 no. BL 10
26
SB XIV 11273 4206 GERACI et al. (1974), p. 34-36 BL 13
SB XIV 11308 4210 CLARYSSE (1975), p. 71-73
SB XIV 11367 4233 BOYAVAL (1974), p. 268 no. 1 BL 11
SB XIV 11626 4255 VANDONI (1976) BL 9
SB XIV 11745 Ro 4259 CLARYSSE & MUSZYNSKI (1977)
SB XIV 11860 4262 DARIS (1975), p. 188-190 no. 1 BL 8
SB XIV 11893 4270 SIJPESTEIJN (1978) BL 8
SB XIV 11968 4291 SIJPESTEIJN (1975), p. 591-593 BAETENS (2016), p. 291-292; CLARYSSE (1977),
no. 4 p. 121
SB XIV 12163 4317 BOYAVAL (1978), p. 190-192 BL 8
SB XVI 12305 4078 KAIMIO (1979) BL 9; HAGEDORN (1980)
SB XVI 12468 4127 TURNER & COCKLE (1982) BL 11
SB XVI 12524 14608 REA (1981) MASCELLARI (2015)
SB XVI 12552 4137 CLARYSSE & QUAEGEBEUR (1982), BL 9
p. 75-77 no. B
SB XVI 12687 4143 BASTIANINI (1981)
SB XVI 12720 4148 MONTEVECCHI et al. (1983), p. 4- BL 9; BL 11; BL 12; BL 13; VANDEMOORTELE
17 (1998), p. 180-190 no. 10
SB XVI 12721 4149 MONTEVECCHI et al. (1983), p. BL 12; BL 13; CLARYSSE & CRISCUOLO (2005);
18-24 KALTSAS (2010), p. 218-219; MESSERI
SAVORELLI (2019), p. 60; VANDEMOORTELE
(1998), p. 141-147 no. 1
SB XVI 12813 4174 EL-MOSALLAMY (1984) BL 9
SB XVI 12823 4176 PARCA (1984) BL 11
SB XVIII 13014 4199 JONKER, RISSELADA & TROMP
(1983), p. 127-129 no. 1
SB XVIII 13092 2519 DARIS et al. (1986), p. 4-8 VANDEMOORTELE (1998), p. 175-179 no. 9
SB XVIII 13093 2520 DARIS et al. (1986), p. 8-15 KALTSAS (2010), p. 219; VANDEMOORTELE
(1998), p. 191-196 no. 11
SB XVIII 13095 2522 DARIS et al. (1986), p. 24-29 BL 9; BL 12; VANDEMOORTELE (1998), p. 160-
166 no. 5
SB XVIII 13096 2523 DARIS et al. (1986), p. 29-30 BL 9; VANDEMOORTELE (1998), p. 167 no. 6
SB XVIII 13097 2524 DARIS et al. (1986), p. 30-37 BL 9; BL 11; BL 12; VANDEMOORTELE (1998), p.
148-154 no. 2
SOURCES 285

SB XVIII 13099 2526 DARIS et al. (1986), p. 39-43;
BUCKATZ (2017)
SB XVIII 13119 2527 ROBINSON & HARRAUER (1986)
SB XVIII 13160 2529 FACKELMANN (1986)
SB XVIII 13253 2538 BINGEN (1987)
SB XVIII 13254 2539 KRAMER & HAGEDORN (1987), p.
9-16 no. 1
SB XVIII 13256 2541 MAEHLER (1987) BL 9
SB XVIII 13312 2548 PIEJKO (1986)
SB XVIII 13735 2598 CRISCUOLO (1985)
SB XX 14083 7873 BATTAGLIA et al. (1989), p. 7-10
SB XX 14127 7878 DARIS & CRISCUOLO (1991), p. 4-5
SB XX 14420 7897 BOYAVAL (1988), p. 107-108 BL 12
SB XX 14592 8068 BASTIANINI & GALLAZZI (1987)
SB XX 14624 5710 CLARYSSE (1988a) P. L. Bat. XXI
SB XX 14999 8121 CAULFIELD, ESTNER & STEPHENS BL 11
(1989), p. 245-248 no. 1
SB XX 15001 8123 CAULFIELD, ESTNER & STEPHENS BL 11; BALAMOSHEV (2011), p. 18-19
(1989), p. 250-254 no. 3
SB XX 15068 8124 KRAUT (1990)
SB XXII 15206 43138 SIJPESTEIJN (1993), p. 27-28 no.
1
SB XXII 15213 8511 DARIS (1994) BL 12
SB XXII 15237 1850 SCHWENDNER & SIJPESTEIJN BL 12
(1994)
SB XXII 15324 43176 CLARYSSE & SIJPESTEIJN (1995)
SB XXII 15369 8349 VAN MINNEN (1994), p. 91-94
no. 1
SB XXII 15462 1654 CLARYSSE (1993), p. 196 BL 9
SB XXII 15463 79044 CLARYSSE (1994)
SB XXII 15496 23921 FEISSEL & GASCOU (1995), p. 67- BL 11; BL 12
84
SB XXII 15497 23922 FEISSEL & GASCOU (1995), p. 84- BL 12
94
107
107
SB XXII 15500 23925 FEISSEL & GASCOU (1995), p. 107-
117 BL 13
SB XXII 15536 8819 CRISCUOLO (1993) BL 12
SB XXII 15542 41498 GONIS (1994)
SB XXII 15558 8350 SCHWENDNER (1988), p. 103-112 BL 11
no. 14
SB XXII 15559 8792 SCHWENDNER (1988), p. 112-114
no. 15
SB XXII 15762 43001 MESSERI SAVORELLI & PINTAUDI BL 13; BERNINI (2010), p. 175-176
(1994)
SB XXII 15786 41710 SIJPESTEIJN (1995), p. 222-223
no. 14
SB XXII 15787 41711 SIJPESTEIJN (1995), p. 223-224 BL 11; BL 12
no. 15
SB XXII 15803 2276 MESSERI SAVORELLI & PINTAUDI BL 11; P. L. Bat. XXI; TM Zenon addenda
(1995), p. 116-118
286 SOURCES

SB XXIV 15938 3077 DUTTENHÖFER (1996) ARMONI (2003), p. 258-259; KALTSAS (2009),
p. 186-187
SB XXIV 16048 41590 NELSON (1996) BL 12
SB XXIV 16063 41803 MARTIN & NACHTERGAEL (1997),
p. 300-303 no. 2
SB XXIV 16285 8808 SOSIN (1997)
SB XXIV 16295 8810 SOSIN & OATES (1997)
SB XXVI 16417 43106 MESSERI SAVORELLI (1999), p. 33- BL 13
36 no. 1
SB XXVI 16610 97138 MARTIN & NACHTERGAEL (1999),
p. 301-305 no. 7
SB XXVI 16742 41487 SOSIN (1999), p. 136-137
SB XXVI 16743 41488 SOSIN (1999), p. 138-139 BL 13
SB XXVI 16744 41489 SOSIN (1999), p. 139-140
SB XXVI 16800 44707 ARMONI (2000), p. 230-232 no.
2
SB XXVI 16801 44708 ARMONI (2000), p. 233-239 no.
3
SB XXVIII 16851 112672 MCGING (2002)
SB XXVIII 16855 5132 CLARYSSE (2002), p. 103-106 no.
3 BL 8; BL 9
SB XXVIII 16874 133400 LÁDA & PAPATHOMAS (2003)
SB XXVIII 16899 133278 CALDWELL (2002)
SB XXVIII 17044 383642 GASCOU (1999)
SB XXVIII 17157 133350 CAPPONI (2004) BERNINI (2010), p. 174-175; MESSERI
SAVORELLI (2006), p. 155-156
SB XXVIII 17175 44526 FORSELV (2002) KALTSAS (2018), p. 217-218
SB XXVIII 17251 47350 BAUSCHATZ & SOSIN (2004) MARTINEZ (2011b); P. Oxyrhyncha, p. 61-69
SB XXVIII 17261 6223 ARMONI (2004) BL 7
SEG XIII 403 /
SEG XLI 1556 /
SEG XLI 1574 /
SEG XLVI 1519 /
Stud. Pal. I p. 1 no. 1 79440 VAN MINNEN (2011), p. 227
UPZ I 2 3393 BL 8; BL 9; BL 11
UPZ I 3 3394 BL 5; BL 9
UPZ I 4 3395 BL 2; BL 5; BL 9
UPZ I 5 3396 BL 4; BL 5; BL 7
UPZ I 6 3397 BL 3; BL 4; BL 5; BL 7; BL 8; BL 13
UPZ I 6 a 3497 REVILLOUT (1893), p. xiii-xxiv CLARYSSE (1986); SETHE (1921)
UPZ I 7 3398 BL 8; SCHRAM (2017), p. 29-37
UPZ I 8 3399 BL 13
UPZ I 9 3400
UPZ I 10 3401 BL 13
UPZ I 11 3402
UPZ I 12 3403 BL 3; BL 5; BL 12
UPZ I 13 3404 BL 3; BL 5; BL 12
UPZ I 14 3405 BL 2; BL 7; BL 13
UPZ I 15 3406
UPZ I 16 3407 BL 2
UPZ I 17 3408 BL 5; BL 9
UPZ I 18 3409 BL 5; BL 8; BL 9
UPZ I 19 3410 BL 5; BL 8
UPZ I 20 3411 BL 5; BL 7; BL 8
UPZ I 22 3413 BL 5
SOURCES 287

UPZ I 24 3415 BL 2; BL 5; BL 9
UPZ I 32 3423 BL 5
UPZ I 33 3424 BL 5
UPZ I 34 3425 BL 5
UPZ I 35 3426 BL 5
UPZ I 36 3427 BL 5
UPZ I 39 3430 BL 5
UPZ I 40 3431 BL 5
UPZ I 41 3432 BL 5; BL 8; BL 9
UPZ I 42 3433 BL 5; BL 8
UPZ I 43 3434 BL 5
UPZ I 44 3435 BL 5
UPZ I 45 3436 BL 2; BL 5
UPZ I 46 3437 BL 5
UPZ I 47 3438 BL 5
UPZ I 48 3439 BL 5
UPZ I 49 3440 BL 5
UPZ I 50 3441 BL 5
UPZ I 51 3442 BL 5; BL 7; BL 9
UPZ I 52 3443 BL 5; BL 7
UPZ I 53 3444 BL 5
UPZ I 58 3449 BL 5
UPZ I 70 3461 BL 5; BL 7; BL 8; BL 11
UPZ I 72 3463 BL 3; BL 9
UPZ I 73 3464
UPZ I 78 3469 BL 2; BL 5; BL 9
UPZ I 93 3484 BL 3
UPZ I 106 3498 BL 12
UPZ I 107 3499
UPZ I 108 3500 BL 9
UPZ I 113 3505
UPZ I 116 3508 BL 3; BL 4; BL 8; BL 13
UPZ I 118 3510 BL 2; BL 3; BL 5; BL 9
UPZ I 122 3514
UPZ I 123 3515
UPZ I 124 3516 BL 2; BL 7
UPZ II 151 2975
UPZ II 152 3553
UPZ II 187 3589 BL 7; BL 8; BL 9; BL 13
UPZ II 218 3620 BL 5; BL 6; BL 7; BL 8
UPZ II 220 3622 BL 5; BL 8
UPZ II 222 3624 BL 5
UPZ II 224 3626 BL 5; BL 9; Dem. BL
WT. Zürich 1894 51507 WANGSTEDT (1966) Dem. BL
Appendix 1: unpublished
ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα
The following table lists all unpublished and only briefly described Ptolemaic
ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα known by the author. Usually, the available information
about these documents is limited and preliminary, so some texts may have been
misidentified. This list is by no means exhaustive: undoubtedly, many ἐντεύξεις and
ὑπομνήματα will continue to resurface in large numbers in collections worldwide.
INVENTORY TM NO. INFORMATION TYPE DATE
Alexandria, Graeco-Roman 8635 P. Alex. p. 19 no. 260 ὑπόμνημα to Ptolemaic

Museum P. 260 basilikos
grammateus
Alexandria, Graeco-Roman 77924 P. Alex. p. 18 no. 325 ἔντευξις to Ptolemaic
Museum P. 325 sovereign
Alexandria, Graeco-Roman 77930 P. Alex. p. 19 no. 456 ὑπόμνημα 3rd century
Museum P. 456 BC
Ann Arbor, Michigan / http://papyri.info/apis/michiga ἔντευξις / 3rd century
University Library 50 n.apis.4880 ὑπόμνημα BC
Ann Arbor, Michigan / http://papyri.info/apis/michiga ἔντευξις / 3rd - 2nd
University Library 59 n.apis.4896 ὑπόμνημα century BC
Ann Arbor, Michigan / http://papyri.info/apis/michiga ἔντευξις / 1st century
Ann Arbor, Michigan / http://papyri.info/apis/michiga ἔντευξις / 1st century
Ann Arbor, Michigan / http://papyri.info/apis/michiga ἔντευξις / 2nd century
Ann Arbor, Michigan / http://papyri.info/apis/michiga ἔντευξις / 2nd century
Berkeley, Bancroft Library 3769 P. Tebt. I 133 Ro ὑπόμνημα to 2nd century
Crocodile 4.2 Ro village epistates BC
Berkeley, Bancroft Library 3769 P. Tebt. I 133 Vo ὑπόμνημα to 2nd century
Crocodile 4.2 Vo village epistates BC
Berkeley, Bancroft Library 3765 P. Tebt. I 129 ὑπόμνημα to 2nd century
Crocodile 9.2 komogrammateus BC
Berkeley, Bancroft Library 3884 P. Tebt. I 254 ὑπόμνημα to ἐπὶ 2nd century
Crocodile 20.7 τῶν προσόδων BC
Berkeley, Bancroft Library 3764 P. Tebt. I 128 ὑπόμνημα to 2nd century
Crocodile 28.3 komogrammateus BC
Berkeley, Bancroft Library P. 78775 P. Tebt. II 467 ἔντευξις / 2nd century
Tebt. 467 ὑπόμνημα BC
Berkeley, Bancroft Library P. 5471 P. Tebt. III 955 ἔντευξις / 2nd century
Tebt. 955 ὑπόμνημα BC
Berkeley, Bancroft Library / http://papyri.info/apis/berkeley ἔντευξις / 2nd century
UC 1497 .apis.1503 ὑπόμνημα BC
Berkeley, Bancroft Library / ANDORLINI (2008), p. 10 ὑπόμνημα to 2nd century
UC 1581 komogrammateus BC
290 UNPUBLISHED ἐντεύξεις AND ὑπομνήματα

Berkeley, Bancroft Library / ANDORLINI (2008), p. 9 ὑπόμνημα Ptolemaic
UC 2395 (designated as
προσάγγελμα?) to
phylakitai
Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 99728 P. Cair. Cat. p. 44 ἔντευξις / 2nd century
10336 ὑπόμνημα BC
Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 369 P. Cair. Cat. p. 47 ἔντευξις / 2nd century
Cairo, Egyptian Museum 113130 EDGAR (1937), p. 261 ὑπόμνημα 3rd - 2nd
number unknown century BC
Cologne, Papyrussamlung 703405 https://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις / 2nd century
6655 koeln.de/stueck/tm703405 ὑπόμνημα BC
Cologne, Papyrussamlung 703489 https://papyri.uni- ὑπόμνημα to 2nd century
7681 koeln.de/stueck/tm703489 διεξάγων τὰ κατὰ BC
τὴν διοίκησιν
Cologne, Papyrussamlung 703600 https://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις to 2nd century
7682 koeln.de/stueck/tm703600 sovereign BC
Cologne, Papyrussamlung 703538 https://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις / 3rd - 2nd
7881 koeln.de/stueck/tm703538 ὑπόμνημα century BC
Cologne, Papyrussamlung 644657 https://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις / 3rd - 2nd
20984 koeln.de/stueck/tm644657 ὑπόμνημα century BC
21008 koeln.de/stueck/tm644662 komogrammateus BC
21010 koeln.de/stueck/tm644665 epimeletes BC
21020 b koeln.de/stueck/tm644590 komogrammateus BC
Cologne, Papyrussamlung 644716 + https://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις to 2nd century
21023 b + 21024 d 644720 koeln.de/stueck/tm644716 + sovereign BC
https://papyri.uni-
koeln.de/stueck/DS_jqs_ssw_wt
21034 koeln.de/stueck/tm644491 strategos BC
21270 koeln.de/stueck/tm703354 strategos BC
UNPUBLISHED ἐντεύξεις AND ὑπομνήματα 291

21291 c koeln.de/stueck/tm703417 ὑπόμνημα BC
Cologne, Papyrussamlung 703466 + https://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις / 2nd -1st
21292 + 21293 703472 koeln.de/stueck/tm703466 + ὑπόμνημα century BC
https://papyri.uni-
koeln.de/stueck/tm703472
Cologne, Papyrussamlung 703323 + https://papyri.uni- ὑπόμνημα 2nd century
21407 b + 21410 b + 21420 b 703592 + koeln.de/stueck/tm703323 + BC
703796 https://papyri.uni-
koeln.de/stueck/tm703592 +
https://papyri.uni-
koeln.de/stueck/tm703796
Cologne, Papyrussamlung 703689 https://papyri.uni- ὑπόμνημα 2nd century
21540 koeln.de/stueck/tm703689 BC
Dublin, Trinity College env. / Information WILLY CLARYSSE ὑπόμνημα 3rd - 2nd
14 (boxes 27) century BC
Dublin, Trinity College env. 113038 Information WILLY CLARYSSE ὑπόμνημα to πρὸς 3rd - 2nd
30 (boxes 67) ταῖς ἀνακρίσεσι century BC
καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐν τῆι
αὐλῆι κριτηρίου
Dublin, Trinity College env. / Information WILLY CLARYSSE ἔντευξις / 3rd - 2nd
52 (boxes 138) ὑπόμνημα century BC
Dublin, Trinity College env. / Information WILLY CLARYSSE ἔντευξις to 3rd - 2nd
74 (boxes 208) sovereign century BC
Dublin, Trinity College env. 112700 Information WILLY CLARYSSE ἔντευξις / 3rd - 2nd
Dublin, Trinity College env. 43136 Information WILLY CLARYSSE ἔντευξις / 3rd - 2nd
191 (select box) ὑπόμνημα century BC
197 (select box) sovereign century BC
Dublin, Trinity College env. / Information WILLY CLARYSSE ἔντευξις 3rd - 2nd
203 (select box) century BC
222 (select box) century BC
Dublin, Trinity College FF 57 41514 To be published by WILLY ὑπόμνημα 3rd - 2nd
(3231.10) CLARYSSE century BC
Dublin, Trinity College FF 59 7681 To be published by WILLY ὑπόμνημα to 3rd century
(3231.24) CLARYSSE strategos BC
Dublin, Trinity College FF 60 704322 To be published by WILLY ὑπόμνημα to 3rd - 2nd
(3231.33) CLARYSSE oikonomos century BC
Dublin, Trinity College FF 60 704325 To be published by WILLY ἔντευξις / 3rd - 2nd
(3231.38) CLARYSSE ὑπόμνημα century BC
Dublin, Trinity College FF 60 704326 VANAVERBEKE (1968), p. 129-130; to ὑπόμνημα 3rd - 2nd
(3231.39) be published by WILLY CLARYSSE century BC
Dublin, Trinity College FF 61 44541 To be published by WILLY ὑπόμνημα 3rd - 2nd
(3231.44) CLARYSSE century BC
Dublin, Trinity College FF 65 41649 VANAVERBEKE (1968), p. 144-145; to ὑπόμνημα 3rd century
(3231.73 a) be published by WILLY CLARYSSE BC
Dublin, Trinity College FF 68 120630 VANAVERBEKE (1968), p. 149-150; to ὑπόμνημα to 3rd century
(3231.98) be published by WILLY CLARYSSE oikonomos BC
Dublin, Trinity College FF 76 704377 To be published by WILLY ἔντευξις to 3rd - 2nd
(3231.139) CLARYSSE sovereign century BC
Durham (NC), Duke 132459 http://www.papyri.info/apis/du ἔντευξις / 2nd century
University P. 104 Vo ke.apis.32053989 ὑπόμνημα BC
University P. 310 Ro ke.apis.29886179 ὑπόμνημα BC
Durham (NC), Duke 8835 http://www.papyri.info/apis/du ὑπόμνημα to 2nd century
University P. 316 ke.apis.29886310 epistates BC
University P. 317 Vo (b) ke.apis.29886315 strategos BC
Durham (NC), Duke 131877 http://www.papyri.info/apis/du ὑπόμνημα 2nd century
University P. 357 ke.apis.29886293 (designated as BC
προσαγγελία)
University P. 359 ke.apis.29886294 ὑπόμνημα BC
University P. 396 ke.apis.29886347 ὑπόμνημα BC
University P. 603 Ro ke.apis.31194789 ὑπόμνημα BC
University P. 674 ke.apis.31194790 representative of BC
the oikonomos
University P. 696 ke.apis.31194801 BC
University P. 713 ke.apis.31194805 strategos BC
University P. 721 Vo ke.apis.31194643 BC

University P. 739 ke.apis.31618438 BC
Jena, University 55 A + B + E / http://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις 2nd century
leipzig.de/receive/IAwJPapyri_sc BC
hrift_00010160
Jena, Univeristy 261 / http://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις / 2nd century
leipzig.de/receive/IAwJPapyri_sc ὑπόμνημα BC
hrift_00008770
Jena, University 777 / http://papyri.uni- ὑπόμνημα to 2nd century
leipzig.de/receive/IAwJPapyri_sc strategos BC
hrift_00006660
Jena, University 796 / http://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις 3rd century
leipzig.de/receive/IAwJPapyri_sc BC
hrift_00006130
Jena, University 890 / http://papyri.uni- ὑπόμνημα 2nd - 1st
leipzig.de/receive/IAwJPapyri_sc century BC
hrift_00020040
Jena, University 942 + 951 / http://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις / 3rd century
hrift_00020700
Jena, University 1049 / http://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις / 3rd century
hrift_00018840
Jena, University 1086 / http://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις / 3rd century
hrift_00020190
Leipzig, Univeristy O. 858 / http://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις / 2nd century
leipzig.de/receive/UBLPapyri_sc ὑπόμνημα BC
hrift_00192150
Leipzig, Univeristy P. 3324 / http://papyri.uni- ἔντευξις / 3rd century
Ro leipzig.de/receive/UBLPapyri_sc ὑπόμνημα BC
hrift_00259060
hrift_00259110
hrift_00259120
London, British Library Pap 78473 P. Lond. III p. XVIII no. 603 ἔντευξις / 3rd century
London, British Library Pap 78478 P. Lond. III p. XXV no. 683 ὑπόμνημα to 2nd century
683 nome epistates BC
London, British Library Pap 655 P. Lond. III p. XXV no. 686 ἔντευξις / Ptolemaic
686 b Vo ὑπόμνημα
London, University College / UCL Petrie Museum online ὑπόμνημα Ptolemaic
31907 catalogue
London, University College / UCL Petrie Museum online ἔντευξις Ptolemaic
31908 catalogue
London, University College / Information WILLY CLARYSSE ἔντευξις to Ptolemaic
36131 sovereign
Lund, University P. 17 142627 http://papyri.info/apis/lund.api ἔντευξις to Ptolemaic
s.24 sovereign
Manchester, John Rylands 44179 P. Ryl. Gr. II 66 b ὑπόμνημα 2nd century
Library Gr. 66 b BC
Milan, Università Cattolica P. 91581 CRISCUOLO (2004), p. 21-22; to be ὑπόμνημα 2nd century
Med. Bar. inv. 8 Vo published by SERGIO DARIS BC
Munich, Bayerische / Information WILLY CLARYSSE ἔντευξις / Ptolemaic
Staatsbibliothek, P. gr. 360 ὑπόμνημα
New Haven, Yale University, / http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis ἔντευξις / 2nd century
Beinecke Library P. CtYBR .0002330000 ὑπόμνημα BC
233
New Haven, Yale University, / http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis ὑπόμνημα 2nd century
Beinecke Library P. CtYBR .0010920000 BC
1092
New Haven, Yale University, 44215 http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis ὑπόμνημα to 3rd century
Beinecke Library P. CtYBR .0020560000; Samuel (1966) oikonomos BC
2056
New Haven, Yale University, / http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis ἔντευξις to 3rd century
Beinecke Library P. CtYBR .0036010000 sovereign BC
3601
New Haven, Yale University, / http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis ὑπόμνημα to 2nd century
Beinecke Library P. CtYBR .0036020000 strategos BC
3602
New Haven, Yale University, / http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis ἔντευξις / 3rd century
Beinecke Library P. CtYBR .0036130000 ὑπόμνημα BC
3613
New Haven, Yale University, / http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis ἔντευξις to 3rd century
Beinecke Library P. CtYBR .0036250000 sovereign BC
3625
New Haven, Yale University, / http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis ὑπόμνημα 3rd century
Beinecke Library P. CtYBR .0042590000 BC
4259
New Haven, Yale University, / http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis ἔντευξις / 3rd century
Beinecke Library P. CtYBR .0047870000 ὑπόμνημα to BC
4787 strategos
New York, Columbia 320903 http://papyri.info/apis/columbi ἔντευξις to 2nd - 1st
University P. 384 b a.apis.p1423 sovereign century BC
Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. 78221 P. Fay. 325 ἔντευξις to 2nd century
Gr. class. d. 72 (P) sovereign BC
Paris, Sorbonne, Institut de / To be published by LORENZO ὑπόμνημα to Ptolemaic
Papyrologie 2855 a-e UGGETTI strategos
Princeton, University 566182 http://papyri.info/apis/princeto ἔντευξις / 3rd century
Library AM 15960 3B 4 n.apis.p595 ὑπόμνημα to BC
oikonomos
Stanford, University 43096 To be published by CHRISTELLE ὑπόμνημα to 3rd century
Libraries P. Gr. 5 FISCHER-BOVET & WILLY CLARYSSE oikonomos BC
Stanford, University 699749 To be published by CHRISTELLE ἔντευξις / Ptolemaic
Libraries P. Gr. 7 FISCHER-BOVET & WILLY CLARYSSE ὑπόμνημα
Stanford, University 699747 To be published by CHRISTELLE ἔντευξις to 2nd century
Libraries P. Gr. 15 FISCHER-BOVET & WILLY CLARYSSE sovereign BC
Stanford, University 699750 + To be published by CHRISTELLE ὑπόμνημα to 3rd century
Libraries P. Gr. 17 + 37 316744 FISCHER-BOVET & WILLY CLARYSSE oikonomos BC
Stanford, University 699755 To be published by CHRISTELLE ἔντευξις / 2nd century
Libraries P. Gr. 33 FISCHER-BOVET & WILLY CLARYSSE ὑπόμνημα BC
Stanford, University 699756 Information CHRISTELLE FISCHER- ἔντευξις / 2nd century
Libraries P. Gr. 36 BOVET & WILLY CLARYSSE ὑπόμνημα BC
Sydney, Macquarie 43299 P. Macquarie p. 26 no. HB 12 ἔντευξις to 3rd century
University 483 sovereign BC

Sydney, Macquarie 371410 P. Macquarie p. 26 no. HB 11 ὑπόμνημα 3rd century
University 488 + 489 BC
Würzburg, University 120 / http://papyri-collection.dl.uni- ὑπόμνημα 2nd - 1st
leipzig.de/receive/WrzPapyri_sc century BC
hrift_00001760
Total: 139 texts
Appendix 2: newly published
ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα
The following table lists all Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα published after the
submission of my dissertation. These new texts have been integrated in the online
database, but not in this publication.
IDENTIFICATION TM NO. PUBLICATION
P. Basel II 9 827772
P. Berlin Gr. 7708 869381 MONTE (2018), p. 84-95 no. 5
P. CtYBR 5058 754941 JOHNSON (2018), p. 158-161
P. CtYBR 5059 754942 JOHNSON (2018), p. 161-165
P. CtYBR 5061 qua 754944 JOHNSON (2018), p. 166-169
P. CtYBR 5062 754945 JOHNSON (2018), p. 169-173
P. Köln Gr. XV 594 704850
P. Köln Gr. XV 595 Ro 703317
P. Köln Gr. XV 600 703476
P. Köln Gr. XVI 650 754293
P. Köln Gr. XVI 651 754294
P. Mich. XXI 859 756890
P. Mich. inv. 1980 832314 BERKES & CLAYTOR (2019), p. 56-59 no. 1
P. Monts. Roca inv. 794 + 318 144230 DE FRUTOS GARCÍA (2020)
P. Oxyrhyncha 1 644667
P. Oxyrhyncha 9 Vo 851642
P. Petrie Museum UC 31916 765530 BLUMELL & ALIBERTI (2018)
P. TCD Pap. Gr. env. 301 58458 BAETENS (2020)

Top SS 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Top SS 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trismegistos Online Publications

A Survey of Petitions and Related

Department of Ancient History, KU Leuven

To prevent this, Trismegistos Online Publications have decided to open up a new

Contributors can send in manuscripts in Word or PDF format to

3.4.3. Fragmentary or incompletely published petitions of uncertain nature .. 128

1.3.2. The later προσαγγέλματα in subsequent studies ......................................... 207

This online publication presents a modified version of my doctoral dissertation I Am

New texts published after the submission of my dissertation (listed in appendix 2)

My supervisor Mark Depauw has been so unfortunate as to have his office

I am also most grateful to my other colleagues at the department of Ancient

The well-known amicitia papyrologorum has manifested itself across country

Lastly, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my family(-in-law) and

βασιλεῖ Πτ[ο]λεμαίωι χαίρειν Ἡρακλείδης τῶν ἀπʼ Ἀλε[ξ]ά[νδρου νήσου,

ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ Ψενοβάστιος ἣ κατοικεῖ Ψυάν, τ[οῦ προγεγρα]μμένου

τούτου γὰρ γε]νομένου, διὰ σέ, βα[σιλεῦ, τεύξομαι τοῦ δι]|καίου.

“To king Ptolemaios, greetings, Herakleides, of those from Alexandrou

I am wronged by Psenobastis, who lives in Psya in the aforementioned

I beg you, king, if it seems good to you, not to overlook me, so

For if this occurs, I will obtain justice thanks to you, my king.

Many hundreds of petitions to the authorities of Graeco-Roman Egypt have been

“One time, when he was thought to be riding out in a more amiable

Flavius Josephus quotes a petition presented to Antiochos IV Epiphanes in his Jewish

The petitions from Ptolemaic Egypt constitute an exceptional collection of texts. As

In 1955, CAVASSINI greatly improved the accessibility of the Ptolemaic petition

Petitions and petition formats

In Graeco-Roman Egypt, no general term for petitions or well-articulated concept of

interests as a consequence.36 The definitions by CAVASSINI and BAUSCHATZ explicitly

- Concerning the addressees of petitions, the definition by BAUSCHATZ appears the

Three specific text formats, characterised by specific opening formulas

A few methodological remarks are in place here:

- In order to present the information in a more orderly way, a distinction between

- The prescripts of mḳmḳ start with wʿ (bȝk-)mḳmḳ, followed by the identification of

- As discussed above, early ὑπομνήματα refer to themselves as ὑπόμνημα in their

- As discussed above, mḳmḳ refer to themselves as (bȝk-)mḳmḳ in their prescript. One

CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS

3rd century (with petitioning function)

3rd century (without petitioning function)

2nd century (with petitioning function)

2nd century (without petitioning function)

1st century (with petitioning function)

1st century (without petitioning function)

CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALL PTOLEMAIC PAPYRI (BASED ON TRISMEGISTOS)

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS

Arsinoites (with petitioning function)

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALL PTOLEMAIC PAPYRI (BASED ON TRISMEGISTOS)

addressed by a strategos to Ptolemaios VI and Kleopatra II (P. Berl. Zill. 1 e [TM

non-royal ἐντεύξεις is further confirmed by formal similarities, especially (but not

1. ROYAL ἐντεύξεις WITH PETITIONING FUNCTION

IDENTIFICATION TM NO. DATE NOME ADDRESSEE ARCHIVE COMMENTS

BGU VI 1241 7318 ca. 225 - Oxyrhynchites king

IDENTIFICATION TM NO. DATE NOME ADDRESSEE ARCHIVE COMMENTS

I. Prose 43 l. 8- 8805 57 BC Arsinoites queen inscription in

IDENTIFICATION TM NO. DATE NOME ADDRESSEE ARCHIVE COMMENTS

P. Col. Zen. II 1787 ca. 255 - Arsinoites king Zenon

IDENTIFICATION TM NO. DATE NOME ADDRESSEE ARCHIVE COMMENTS

P. Enteux. 24 3299 221 BC Arsinoites king petitions from

IDENTIFICATION TM NO. DATE NOME ADDRESSEE ARCHIVE COMMENTS

P. Enteux. 51 3326 222 - 218 Arsinoites king petitions from

IDENTIFICATION TM NO. DATE NOME ADDRESSEE ARCHIVE COMMENTS

P. Enteux. 78 3353 221 BC Arsinoites king petitions from designated as

IDENTIFICATION TM NO. DATE NOME ADDRESSEE ARCHIVE COMMENTS