sign in

ddbdp.2020.3 = HGV P.Got. 101 (DDbDP 2020 3) = Trismegistos 30696 = gothenburg.apis.112 =

DDbDP transcription: ddbdp.2020.3 [xml]

[Reprinted from:] P.Got. 101


Account of Income and Expenses Addressed to the Gymnasiarch Aurelius Theonas

Nicola Reggiani

P.Got. 101 descr. (= P.Got. inv. 106r) is a light brown papyrus fragment, 7.3 (w) x 7.9 (h) cm, broken on the left-hand side and at the bottom, and damaged by several holes throughout. A top margin of ca. 1.3 cm and a right margin of ca. 1.4 cm are partly preserved. If we assume that nothing precedes the name of the addressee in l. 1 and παρά in l. 2 - as appears likely because of the paragraphos, which should not have been very long, the gap on the left contained about 3 characters, at least up to l. 7; from l. 8 downwards, the lacuna gets larger (ca. 6 letters).

The document is an account of income and expenses addressed by Aurelius Pabeus (and someone else?) to a previously unattested gymnasiarch named Aurelius Theonas. The provenance is unknown, but some onomastic hints might point to the Panopolite (see below, notes to ll. 2 and 5), where a few other papyri of the Gothenburg collection come from. The presence of the nomen Aurelius requires a date after the Constitutio Antoniniana (AD 212). There is a mention of a possible 1st regnal year (l. 5), but it is impossible to state which emperor it refers to.

Several parallels for this type of account "for income and expenses" are attested in papyri, see e.g. P.Flor. 3 321 and 322, as well as P.Lond. 3 1170v. The general scheme seems to follow a chronological arrangement: ll. 3, 4 and 11 refer directly to Pauni, and day numbers seem to have been distinguished from other figures by means of overlines (ll. 4, 5 & 11). The income section (ll. 4-6) probably starts with the record of a payment or deposit of 40 drachmas made by someone for the 1st year on Pauni 14. Then an entry for Pauni 20 follows; ὁμοίως - to be read at the end of the same line - most likely means that the next payment, consisting of three installments of 40 drachmas each, was made by the same person or for the same purpose as before. The sum of all income is reported at the end (40+120=160 drachmas). The list of the expenses (ll. 7-10) features the amount of each entry aligned to the right, and the total of 130 drachmas and 6 obols is clearly readable in l. 10, as the result of the exact addition of the preceding items (72 + 56 + 2 drachmas and 6 obols). The interpretation of the rest of the fragment (ll. 11 ff.) remains problematic. Verso non vidi.

(Work on this papyrus took place in two courses offered by Rodney Ast, Lajos Berkes and James Cowey at the University of Heidelberg's Institute for Papyrology during summer semester 2013 and 2014. The author expresses his gratitude to all involved in those classes for their assistance. Thanks are also due to Anders Larsson, Senior Librarian in the Gothenburg University Library, for providing the digital images that made this edition possible; to Karin Kulneff for APIS catalog records she supplied; to Josh Sosin, Hugh Cayless and Ryan Baumann at the Duke Collaboratory for Classics Computing for technical support; to Paul Heilporn for a general review and precious help in reading the most difficult passages. This publication is also part of the project "Synopsis: Data Processing and State Management in Late Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (150 BCE-300 CE)", conducted by Prof. Andrea Jӧrdens (University of Heidelberg) and Prof. Uri Yiftach-Firanko (University of Tel Aviv) under the auspices of the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (grant no. G-38-111.4/2011).)

[Α]ὐ̣ρηλίωι Θε̣ω̣νᾷ γυ̣μνασι[ά]ρ̣χ(ῳ)
[πα]ρ̣ὰ Αὐρηλ(ίου)(*) Παβέως   ̣  ̣  ̣χ̣ω̣(  )(*) Μαρίωνος
[λόγ]ο̣ς λημ̣(μάτων)(*) καὶ ἀνα̣λ̣(ωμάτων)(*) μ̣η̣(νὸς) Παῦν̣[ι το]ῦ̣ ἐνε̣σ̣τ̣(ῶτος) [  ̣] (ἔτους(?)) //
[⁦ vac. ? ⁩] ἔ̣σ̣τ̣ι̣ δὲ λημ(μάτων)(*) Παῦνι ι̣δ παρὰ τ̣οῦ
5[- ca.3 -]  ̣κ̣ου̣ Δίωνος(*) ὑ̣(πὲρ) α (ἔτους) (δραχμὰς) μ̣   ̣  ̣ κ(*) ὁμοίως
[- ca.3 -]υρν  ̣(  ) γ̣ ἐκ (δραχμῶν)(*) μ (δραχμὰς) ρκ̣ (γίνονται) λημ̣(μάτων)(*) (δραχμαὶ) ρξ
[ἀνα]λ̣(ωμάτων(?))(*) ὀψω̣(ν (?)) Σα̣  ̣  ̣π̣ου καὶ επαυλ(  ) ⁦ vac. ? ⁩ (δραχμὰς) οβ
[- ca.4 -]  ̣ε̣  ̣[  ̣]  ̣[  ̣] β̣ ἐκ (δραχμῶν)(*) κη ⁦ vac. ? ⁩ (δραχμὰς) νϛ
[- ca.6 -] κ̣υθ̣ρῶ̣ν̣ ὁμοί(ως) ⁦ vac. ? ⁩ (δραχμ ) β ὀβ(ολ ) ϛ
10[- ca.6 -] (γίνονται(?)) (δραχμαὶ) ρλ ὀβ(ολοὶ) ϛ
[- ca.6 -] Π̣αῦνι γ(*) ε  ̣  ̣(*) ὀβ̣(ολ ) ϛ̣   ̣  ̣(*) α̣   ̣ α̣
[- ca.6 -]  ̣  ̣θ̣ ἀν̣(ὴρ) α κόπτ(ων) ξύλ(α) ο̣ἰκί(ας)(*)
[- ca.6 -] Traces 1 line
13-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --


^ 2. or Αὐρηλ(ίων)
^ 2. or κ̣α̣ὶ̣ Χ̣ω̣(  )
^ 3. or λήμ̣(ματος), [  ̣  ̣  ̣]έχει prev. ed.
^ 3. or ἀνα̣λ̣(ώματος)
^ 4. or λήμ(ματος), ε̣π̣ι̣δέχῃ̣ prev. ed.
^ 5. or [- ca.3 -]  ̣ Κουδίωνος
^ 5. or ⟦⟧  ̣  ̣⟦⟧,   ̣αι  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣ prev. ed.
^ 6. or ἑκ(αστ ) (δραχμὰς)
^ 6. or λήμ̣(ματος)
^ 7. or [ἀνα]λ̣(ώματος(?))
^ 8. or ἑκ(αστ ) (δραχμὰς)
^ 11. or [ι]γ
^ 11. or ἐ(κ) (or ἐ<κ>)(*) (δραχμῶν)
^ 11. or (πυροῦ) (ἀρταβ )
^ 12. or ο̣ἰκί(ᾳ)


  • 2.

    The ink traces between Παβέως and Μαρίωνος are puzzling. We might expect a name here, but, if it was the father's name, we would expect τοῦ to precede Μαρίωνος as the usual indicator of the grandfather's name. As this is unreadable, this section remains problematic. Other possibilities such as τοῦ καί and λόγῳ ("on account of") also cannot be read. For the form of a looped chi compare the last letter of l. 1. Almost all the extant attestations of the name Pabeus come from the Panopolite (see Trismegistos People, s.v.), most of them from the 3rd cent. AD.

  • 3.

    The reading of the whole line is tentative. The upsilon of το]ῦ̣ could have been directly joined to the following epsilon. Afterwards, nu seems certain, ε̣σ̣ would be very cursively written, and the horizontal line could be an abbreviating tau (a small leg is perhaps to be recognized on the right). The ink trace below the gap could be the bottom part of an S-shaped ἔτους symbol (see l. 5). In the same gap there could have been space for one further character: if a year number is to be postulated, then we may think of [β], on the basis of l. 5, because if the year was the same in both references, then we might expect τοῦ αὐτοῦ to have been made explicit in the second entry.

  • 4.

    The usual formula is ἔστι δέ (introducing the whole account) λημμάτων (or λήμματος, introducing the income section): see e.g. P.Heid. 4 312.i.9-10 & P.Heid. 4 312.ii.10-11 (222 CE) or P.Flor. 3 322.5-6. ἔ̣σ̣τ̣ι̣, at the beginning, is doubtful: if we follow this reading, then just before the lacuna we should have the right part of a collapsing sigma crossed with the left part of the horizontal of tau. A much easier reading would be ε̣ἴ̣σ̣ι̣, but it is unattested in the said formula: a scribal mistake might be conceivable. If any of the two readings is correct, then we may suppose that the line was indented. The final upsilon is traced with three strokes (see l. 9 for the same feature); the last one could have acted as a line filler.

  • 5.

    At the beginning, either two names or one. In the former case, we would have the name of the payer, ending with ]κ̣ου (less likely ]β̣ου), followed by the father's name, Δίωνος. Otherwise, we would get the genitive of the rare name Κουδίων, attested a few times at Panopolis in the first half of the 4th century (SB 24 16000, passim. Less likely is Βουδίων, attested in P.Marm. r.31 from Marmarike, after AD 191, and in P.Lond.Copt.638, occ1, from the Arsinoite, dated in or after the 6th century). In the case of Κ̣ουδίωνος, the small gap at the beginning of the line might have contained a short or abbreviated name, of which Κ̣ουδίωνος was the patronymic; otherwise, Κ̣ουδίωνος was the main name, and the line was indented like the previous one. The word ὁμοίως at the end seems to have been first abbreviated (up to the crossed iota), and then spelled out.

  • 6.

    Since we are dealing with payments for the month of Pauni, it makes little sense to interpret υ̣ρ̣ at the beginning as the ending of the month name Ἁθύρ, unless there is perhaps a reference to a payment for arrears. π]υ̣ρ̣ο̣ῦ (ἀρτάβαι) or a name starting with Α]ὐ̣ρ̣- might also be - very tentatively - considered. The way of indicating multiplications with ἐκ is well attested: see, e.g., O.Heid. 331.5-8 (2nd cent. AD), where ἄ]νδ(ρες) γ ἐκ (δραχμῆς) α (ὀβολοῦ 1) (δραχμαὶ) γ (ὀβολoὶ 3(?)) is to be translated as "three men at 1 drachma and 1 obol each". An alternative option is ἕκαστος abbreviated, with the very same meaning. The reading is not beyond doubt (especially the big gamma, which seems to be followed by a small spot of ink, and the drachma-sign) but it is compatible with the arithmetics of the account (see also below, l. 8): three times 40 drachmas gives the precise subtotal of 120 drachmas.

  • 7.

    At the very beginning, the short horizontal stroke visible before the ο might belong to an abbreviated lambda of ἀνα]λ̣( ), as in l. 3. If so, the long overstroke can be interpreted as a paragraphos separating the two different sections of the account. It is possible that the line beginning was slightly indented; in any case, a widely written ἀνα- could fit the left-hand lacuna. The first expense is for a wage (ὀψώνιον) paid to someone (a proper name or a profession has to be read afterwards). If the reading επαυλ( ) is correct (the word looks cramped on the left side, as if the ε had been added later), then the reference might be to a flute player (verb ἐπαυλέω) or to a country house (ἔπαυλις). The former option could point to wages dispensed on occasion of a feast; on the contrary, the mention of a house would be unrelated to the preceding ὀψώνιον.

  • 8.

    It seems very likely that we have to read β̣, so that we have two unidentified items "at 28 drachmas" each, for a total of 56 drachmas (see above, note to l. 6, for discussion of this accounting writing).

  • 9.

    κ̣υθ̣ρῶ̣ν̣ could identify an undefined number of pots (for κύθρα = χύτρα see Medicalia Online s.v.). However, theta is problematic. The 6-obol rate points to the 7-obol drachma discussed by Shelton in P.Cair.Mich. 1, part 2, pp. 7-18 with further bibliography. Cf. e.g. P.Oxy. 6 917.4 and 59 3993.7 (both 2nd-3rd cent.) where the same accounting feature occurs, along with the same abbreviation for obols.

  • 11.

    After the mention of Pauni, the only clear signs are those for the six obols. In between, γ ἐ(κ) (δραχμῶν) β̣ or γ ἑ(καστ ) (δραχμὰς) β̣ is perhaps possible (the rate of 2 drachmas 6 obols appears for a day of donkey work in O.Berl. 70, 2nd cent. AD) but not very likely, since - apart from general difficulties in reading - gamma appears supralined as the other day numbers (see above).

  • 12.

    Perhaps "one man cutting the wood": cf. P.Mich. 2 127.36 (Tebtynis, AD 45-46) ἐρ̣γάτες κοπτοντες (l. ἐργάταις κόπτουσι) ξύλα "for the workers cutting the wood". Afterwards, possibly οἰκί(ᾳ) or οἰκί(ας), i.e. "for" or "of the house", though one would probably expect εἰς οἰκίαν.

Editorial History; All History; (detailed)

Creative Commons License © Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Image [open in new window]

Notice: Each library participating in APIS has its own policy concerning the use and reproduction of digital images included in APIS. Please contact the owning institution if you wish to use any image in APIS or to publish any material from APIS.