Chapter 11: Testamentary Dispositions
The clauses of the Greek and Roman will are discussed in a separate section partly due to a well-established tradition: wills and inheritance law are treated separately in law books and are taught separately from other institutions of private law. There is also some methodological justification for this practice: wills are meant to regulate the transfer of property and the naming of heirs, beneficiaries, and guardians after the testator has died. The testator must make it unequivocally clear who these persons are and who is excluded from the inheritance. Moreover, these people are appointed without their consent or even their knowledge. Therefore, a special procedure was introduced in Roman wills, by which the heirs were to accept their share. Even so, much uncertainty remained: the testator sought to account for all his or her property. But what if he or she had a right or liability not recorded in the document? Several issues are particularly relevant in this context, such as the care of underage children, the widow’s status, and the burial rites and their costs. There was also the question of authenticity: to ensure that the will was composed by a testator of sound mind, compulsory precautions were taken. The composition of the will was attended by witnesses at a public notary office, the document was sealed, and a special public procedure for its opening had to be followed.
1. Introductory (Wills)
Category: Testamentary
The introductory clause goes back, in Egypt, to the early Ptolemaic period. The text consists of the formula τάδε διέθετο νοῶν καὶ φρονῶν with the name of the testator in the nominative, and the formal identifiers as routinely applied in the place and time of composition. Cf., e.g., P.Petr.2 I 3.64–95, ll. 69–72 (238/7 BCE, Krokodilopolis): τάδε διέθετο νοῶν καὶ φρονῶν Δίων Ἡρακλεώ|70[της τῶν Δ]άμωνος πεντακοσίαρχος κληροῦχος ὡς (ἐτῶν) ξε βραχὺς με|71[λίχρους ἀν]αφάλαντος στρογγυλοπρόσωπος οὐλὴ ἐπὶ μήλου παρʼ ὀφρῦν | 72 [ἀριστερὰν] καὶ ἄλλη μετώπωι μέσωι καὶ ἄλλη \μετώπωι/ ὑπὲρ ὀφρῦν δεξιάν (‘Dion of Herakleia, of the company of Damon, commander of five hundred men, cleruch, about 65 years old, short [with honey-coloured complexion], bald-forehead and round face, with a scar on his cheek beside his [left] eyebrow and another one in the middle of his forehead above his right eyebrow, being of sound mind and in possession of his wits, has made the following will’ (Transl.: Clarysse (1991): 94). The text records the soldier’s military unit, rank, age, and a detailed account of his body features. The same scheme is used mutatis mutandis throughout the Roman period. Cf., e.g., P.Oxy. III 492.2–3 (130 CE, Oxyrhynchos), where one uses the genealogical identifier as is the rule in contemporary agoranomic instruments from Oxyrhynchos:[τ]άδε διέθε[το νοοῦ]σα καὶ φρονοῦσα Θατρῆς Ἀμμωνίου τοῦ Σαραπίωνος μητρὸς Τσενθοτσύμιος τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ Τρύφωνος Ἰσ̣[ίο]υ τῆς κάτω τοπαρχία[ς] καταγεινομένη ἐν Ὀξυρύγχων πόλει μετὰ κυρίου τοῦ τῆς ἀν̣εψιᾶς α[ὐτῆς] | 3 Ἡρακλοῦ[τος Σαρ]απίωνος τοῦ Σαραπίωνος μητρὸς Ταυσε[ίρ]ιος τῆς καὶ Σαραποῦτος υἱοῦ Ὡρίωνος τοῦ καὶ Θέωνος Σαρ[α]πί[ω]νος τοῦ [ ̣] ̣ ̣ν[ ̣] ̣ε̣ω̣ς τῶν ἀπὸ Ἰβίωνος Ἀμμωνίου τῆς αὐτῆς κάτω τοπαρχίας ἐ[ν ἀγυιᾷ] (‘Thatres daughter of Ammonios, son of Sarapion, whose mother is Tsenthotsymis from Tryphonos Ision of the lower toparchy, now residing in the city of Oxyrhynchos accompanied as kyrios by Horion alias Theon son of Sarapion son of – – from Ibion Ammoniou of the same lower toparchy the son of her cousin Heraklous daughter of Sarapion son of Sarapion, whose mother is Tausiris alias Sarapous, , has made in the street the following disposition being sane and in her right mind …’), with an account of the patronym, papponym, metronym, and domicile. A different formulation is used in Roman wills: P.Diog. 10.2 (211, Ptolemais Euergetis): L(ucius) Ignatius Rufinus Ant(inoites) t(estamentum) f(ecit) (‘Lucius Ignatius Rufinus, a citizen of, Antinoopolis, has composed the will’) and in Greek, e.g., BGU I 326.1.2–3 (189 CE, Karanis): [Γάιος Λογγῖνος Κάστωρ οὐε]τρανὸς ἐντίμως ἀπ̣ολυθε[ὶ]ς | [ἐκ κλάσσης πραιτωρί]ας Μισηνῶν [δια]θήκην ἐποί[ησ]εν (‘Gaius Longinus Castor, a veteran honorably discharged from the Praetorian classis of the Misenians. has composed the will’). The post-Antonine formulation διαθ(ήκην) ἐποίησεν γραφησομένην τε ὑπηγόρευσεν (‘… had composed a will and dictated it to be written’), P.Princ. II 38.1–3 (c. 264 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis), is also used, in all probability, in a contemporary loan contract: CPR XVIIb 11.36–46, ll. 36-37 (217/8 CE?, Panopolis). The extremely long and convoluted introductory clause in Byzantine wills finds different expressions as attested in its aforementioned predecessors. P.Cair.Masp. III 67312.5-28 (567 CE, Antinoopolis): ☧ Φλαύι(ς [Θ]ε̣[ό]δ̣[ωρο]ς̣ ἐ̣ξ̣[κ]έ̣[πτ]ω̣ρ τῆς κατὰ Θηβαίδα δουκικῆς | 6 τάξεως, υἱὸς τοῦ τῆς̣ ἐ̣[ν]δ̣[όξο(υ)] μ̣ν̣ή̣μ̣[ης Φοιβάμμων]ο̣ς̣ γ̣ε̣γονότος σχολαστικο(ῦ) | 7 φόρου Θηβαίδος, ὁρμώμενος ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀντινοέων, ταύτην | 8 ποιο̣(ῦ)μαι τ̣ὴ̣ν̣ ἔγ̣[γ]ρ̣α̣φον διαθήκην κα̣θ̣ὰ̣ ὑ̣π̣ο̣τ̣έτ̣α̣κ̣τ̣[α]ι̣ ̣ ̣υ̣ | 9 συνεχόμενος καὶ δεδειὼς (l. δεδιὼς) τὸ μέλλον, μὴ, πρὶν διαθῶμαι | 10 καὶ τὰ καθʼ (l. κατʼ) ἐμαυτὸν διατυπώσω, καὶ παρὰ προσδοκίαν τὸν | 11 βίον μεταλλάξω, διὰ τοῦτο, νοῶν καὶ φρονῶν καὶ ἐπʼ ἀκριβείας | 12 πολλῆς φέρων μο(υ) τὸν λογισμὸν καὶ ἐρρωμένας ἔχων σὺν Θεῷ | 13 τὰς φρένας καὶ πάσας τὰς ἐσθήσεις (l. αἰσθήσεις) καὶ τοὺς λογισμοὺς | 14 ἀπαθεῖς διασῴζων, ταύτην τὴν διαθήκην τίθημι, | 15 ἐπὶ παρουσίᾳ τῶν κατὰ παράκλησιν ἐμὴν προσκληθέντων | 16 καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνηγμένων ῥογάτων νομίμων ἑπτὰ μαρτύρω(ν), | 17 πολιτῶν ὄντων Ῥωμαίων, ἐφήβων, καὶ ὑπολήμψεως ἀντι|18ποιο(υ)μένων, τῶ\ν/ κ(αὶ) ἑξῆς ὑπογραφόντων ταύτῃ μο(υ) τῇ δ[ιαθ]ήκῃ | 19 καὶ σφραγιζόντων αὐτὴν ἐν μιᾷ συνόδῳ καὶ ῥοπῇ καὶ ὥρᾳ, μηδεμιᾶς | 20 ἑτέρας πράξεως μεσολαβούσης, κατὰ τὴν τῶν νόμων δύναμιν, | 21 ἥνπερ διαθήκην ὑπα̣γόρευσα (l. ὑπηγόρευσα) ἑλληνικοῖς ῥήμασί τε καὶ | 22 γράμμασι γραφῆναι ἐπέτρεψα, καὶ βούλομαι αὐτὴν ἔχειν τὴν | 23 ἰδίαν δύναμιν καὶ βεβαίωσιν ἐφʼ οἷς περιέχει πᾶσι κεφαλαίοις, | 24 ἐπέχειν δὲ αὐτὴν οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ κωδικίλλου τάξιν καὶ δύναμιν | 25 πάσης τελευταίας βουλήσεως καὶ φιδεικομισσαρίας | 26 ἐπιστολῆς, προκομιζομένην καὶ δημοσιευομένην ἐπὶ πάσης | 27 ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας παντὶ χρόνῳ καὶ καιρῷ, κατὰ τὰ θειώδως | 28 ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων διηγορευμένα (‘I, Flavius Theodorus, exactor of the ducal staff of the Thebaide, son of Phoibammon of glorious memory, former scholasticus of the phoros of the Thebais, originating from Antinoopolis, composed this written will as detailed below, distressed and fearing the future, lest, before I manage to dispose of my property and against my hope I will end my life, for this reason, sane and in my right mind and drawing up my account with much precision, and holding my mind, with God, sound, and maintaining my senses and my power of reasoning unaffected, I draw up this will in the presence of the seven requested lawful witnesses that were summoned by my request and gathered for this purpose. who are Roman citizens of age, applying themselves to the task, who added their subscription in the following to this will of mine and sealed it at one gathering, time, and occasion, with no other activity setting in between, in accordance with the capacity of the laws, which will I have dictated in Greek words and have entrusted to be submitted to writing, and I wish it to have its own strength and warranty in all its existing provisions, and let it also possess no less the status of a codicil and the capacity of all last wills and fideicommissary letters, having been produced and made public before every office and authority at all occasions and times, in accordance with the precepts that have been solemnly introduced by the laws’).
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 339-340; Strobel (2014): 38-39.
BGU I 326.1.2-3, 15 (codicillus) (189, Kar); VI 1285.3-4 (110A, Herak); VII 1654.4-5 (98-117, PtolEu); CPR VI 1.2-3 (125, PtolEu); 72.1-4 (I, HermN); XVIIb 11.36-46, ll. 36-37 (217/8?, Panop) [loan]; P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.4-66 (570, Antin); III 67312.5-28 (567, Antin); P.Col. VII 188.1-5 (320, Kar); X 267.2-3 (180-192, Ox); P.Diog. 9.1-2 (186-210, Phil?); 10.2 (211, PtolEu); P.Dryton 1.12-13 (164A, Diospolis Mikra); 2.14-16 (150A, Latopolis); 3.1.1 (126A, Path); 4.1-2 (126A, Path); P.Dura 16, B.6 (Il, Dura Europos); P.Eleph. 2.2-3 (284A, Eleph); P.Flor. III 341.2 (II, Ox?); P.Grenf. I 24.8-9 (139A-132A, Krok); P.Köln II 100.1 (133, Pim[ ]); XII 487.2 (117-138, Ox); P.Lips. II 149.3-6 (199, Ox); P.Lond. I 77.1-14 (c. 610, Hermonthis); II 219vb.2-5 (IIA, Itos); V 1727.4-21 (583/4, Sy); VII 2015.5-8 (242A, Memphis); P.Lund VI 6.2-3 (190/1, PtolEu); P.Münch. I 8.1-8 (c. 540, Sy); P.Oxy. I 104.4-8 (96, Ox); 105.2 (118-138, Ox); II 368.2-3 (43/4, Ox); III 489.3 (117, Ox); 490.2-3 (124, Ox); 491.2-3 (126, Ox); 492.2-3 (130, Ox); 494.2-3 (156, Ox); 495.2 (182-189, Ox); 646 (117-126?, Ox); 647.2-3 (IIf, Ox); 652.3-4 (Is/IIe, Ox); VI 907.1-2 (276, Ox); XX 2283. 6-13 (586, Ox); XXXVIII 2857.1-2 (134, Ox); LII 3692.1 (II, Ox); LXVI 4533.2 (Il/IIe, Ox); P.Petr.2 I 1.1-31, ll. 6-8 (238/7A, Krok?); 1.33-68, ll. 37-39 (238/7A, Krok); 1.87-98, ll. 92-95 (238/7A, Krok); 2.31-44, ll. 36-38 (238/7A, ArsN); 3.38-63, ll. 43-45 (238/7A, Krok); 3.64-95, ll. 69-72 (238/7A, Krok); 3.8-37, ll. 13-16 (238/7A, Krok); 4.3-5 (238/7A, Krok?); 6.1-26, ll. 1-2 (238/7A, ArsN); 6.27-47, ll. 32-34 (238/7A, Meris of Polemon); 6.48-52, l. 52 (238/7A, Krok); 7.2-4 (238/7A, Krok?); 9.8-19, ll. 12-15 (238/7A, Krok); 11.7-10 (238/7A, Krok); 13.1-4 (238/7A, ArsN); 14.6-9 (238/7A, Krok); 16.12-40, ll. 17-20 (236/5A, Krok); 16.41-66, ll. 46-49 (236/5A, Krok); 16.67-94, ll. 72-74 (236/5A, Krok); 16.95-122, ll. 100-103 (236/5A, Krok); 16.123-128, ll. 128 (236/5A, Kerke[- -]); 17.15-40, ll. 20-22 (236/5A, Krok); 17.41-49, ll. 45-47 (236/5A, Krok); 18.10-13 (236/5A, Theog); 19.1-3 (236/5A, ArsN); 22.1-14, ll. 6-9 (235/4A, Krok?); 22.15-32, ll. 18-21 (235/4A, ArsN); 24.15-38, ll. 21-24 (226/5A, Krok); 24.39-57, ll. 43-45 (226/5A, Krok?); 25.8-38, ll. 13-15 (226/5A, Krok); 26.8-13, l. 12- (226/5A, Krok?); P.Princ. II 38.1-3 (c. 264 , PtolEu); P.Sijp. 43.2 (119/20, OxN); P.Stras. IV 284.2-3 (176-180, PtolEu); P.Tebt. II 465 (190, Teb); P.Wisc. I 13.2-3 (IIe, Ox); PSI XIII 1325.9-25, l. 9? (138-161, Alex?); SB V 8265.1-2 (335/6?, ArsN); XII 10859.5-6 (220A, Ghoran); XIV 11642.1 (178/9, PtolEu); XVIII 13168.1-2 (123A, Path); 13308.3-5 (81-96, PtolEu?); XX 14379.6 (320, Kar); XXIV 15921.3-6? (176-193, Ox); SPP I pp. 6-7, ll. 1-8 (c. 460, Antin); XX 35.3-5 (235 HerakN).
2. Invalidation
Category: Testamentary
The invalidation of previously composed wills is attested in early Ptolemaic wills only. P.Petr.2 I 6.1–26, ll. 16–17 (238/7 BCE, Arsinoites): ἃς δὲ πρότ̣[ερον τέθειμαι] | [διαθήκας ἄκυροι ἔστωσαν (‘Let the wills that I have formerly composed be invalid’). See also P.Petr.2 I 7.8–9 (238/7 BCE, Arsinoites) and P.Petr.2 I 15.4–5 (both: 238/7 BCE, Arsinoites).
Bibl.: Clarysse (1991): 133, 139, 141.
3. Exclusion Clause
Category: Testamentary
Both the Roman testamentum per aes et libram (below: R) and the Greek diatheke (below: G) contain an exclusion clause. Their wording and location, however, are so different from one another that one may assume a totally different background for each. The Greek clause (e.g., P.Petr.2 I 24.15–38 l. 26 (226/5 BCE, Krokodilopolis): ἄλλωι δὲ οὐθενὶ οὐθὲν καταλ‹ε›ίπω, is positioned at the end of the document, frequently following a clause that prohibits and penalizes all challenges to the disposition (e.g., P.Köln II 100.17: 133 CE, Pim[], Oxyrhynchites). Its wording is relatively constant and goes back to the third century BCE. The Latin text of the Roman clause (e.g., P.Oxy. LII 3692.6 (II CE, Oxyrhynchos) reads: cetẹri omnes exherẹdes sunto (‘All the others are to be excluded’) (so the editio princeps). The Greek text of the Roman will follows the Roman prototype, with the small but significant addition of the personal pronouns μοι or μου after the noun ἀποκληρόνομος. Cf., e.g., P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2857.4–5 (134 CE, Oxyrhynchos): οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ πάντες ἀποκληρόνομο(ί) | 5 μοι ἔστωσαν̣ (‘Let all others be disinherited’.) Unlike the diatheke, it is located at the beginning of the document, immediately after the heredis institutio. Here as in other respects, Byzantine documentation exhibits fusion. See particularly, and most succinctly, Stud.Pal. I p. 6ff. ll. 24–26: οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ πάντες ἀποκληρονόμοι μο\υ/ ἔστωσαν διὰ τὸ οὕτω | 25 μοι δεδόχθαι ἐξουσίας οὐκ οὔσης οὐδενὶ ἀντιλέγειν ταύτῃ μο\υ/ τῇ | 26 διαθήκῃ (‘Let all others be disinherited since I have decided so, no one being entitled to challenge this will of mine’) where the wording is Roman but the positioning at the end of the document is Greek.
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 348-349 [Greek], 382-383 [Roman]; Amelotti (1966): 123-130; Nowak (2014): 153-159; Strobel (2014): 40-41.
BGU VII 1696a.8 (II, Phil) [R]; CPR VI 1.17 (125, PtolEu) [G]; P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.202-225 (570, Antin) [R]; III 67312.49-52 (567, Antin) [R]; 67324.13-14 (VI, Aphr) [R]; P.Diog. 9.5-6 (186-210, Phil?) [R]; 10.3 (211, PtolEu) [R]; P.Dryton 2.23-24 (150A, Latop) [G]; P.Grenf. I 62.12-18 (535, Herm?); P.Köln II 100.17 (133, Pim[], OxN) [G]; P.Lips. II 149.16-18 (199, Ox) [G]; P.Lond. II 219vb AV 5 (IIA, Itos) [G]; P.Mich. VII 437.3 (II, UP) [R]; P.Oxy. I 104.31-32 (96, Ox) [G]; III 490.7 (124, Ox) [G]; 492.10 (130, Ox) [G]; 646.13-14 (117-126?, Ox); 649.7 (Is/II, Ox) [G]; VI 907.4-5 (276, Ox) [R]; XXXVIII 2857.4-5, 11-12 (134, Ox) [R]; LII 3692.6 (II, Ox) [R]; P.Petr.2 I 2.31-44, l. 41 (238/7A, ArsN) [G]; 4.12-13 (238/7A, Krok ?) [G]; 6.1-26, l. 16 (238/7A, ArsN) [G]; 7.7-8 (238/7A, Krok?) [G]; 9.8-19, ll. 17-18 (238/7A, Krok) [G]; 11.13-14 (238/7A, Krok) [G]; 14.16-17 (238/7A, Krok) [G]; 16.12-40, ll. 23-24 (236/5A, Krok) [G]; 16.67-94, ll. 79-80 (236/5A, Krok) [G]; 16.95-112, l. 107 (236/5A, Krok) [G]; 17.15-40, ll. 25-26 (236/5A, Krok) [G]; 23.3 (235/4A, ArsN) [G]; 24.15-38, l. 26 (226/5A, Krok) [G]; 25.8-38, ll. 37-38 (226/5A, Krok) [G]; 27.2 (226/5A, ArsN) [G]; P.Princ. II 38.4 (c. 264, PtolEu) [R]; P.Stras. IV 277.10-11 (IIIs, ArsN) [R]; P.Tebt. II 465.25 (190, Teb) [G]; PSI XII 1263.11-12 (166/7, Ox) [G]; XIII 1325.9-25 l. 10 ? (172-175, Alex?) [R]; SB V 8265.3 (335/6?, ArsN) [R]; VIII 9642.4.18 (117-137, Teb) [R]; SPP I p. 6ff., ll. 24-25 (c. 460, Antin) [R]; XX 35.11 (235, HerakN) [G].
4. Freedom of Future Disposition
Category: Capacity, Testamentary
In all well-established types of hereditary dispositions—diatheke, meriteia, and testamentum per aes et libram—the testator maintains the future right to dispose of his property. At the core stands the formulation εἴη μέν μοι ὑγιαίνειν καFὶ κύριον εἶναι (‘May I enjoy good health and remain in authority’), which may be developed further using the infinitive or the participle of the present tense to denote the activities that the testator may undertake. The array of verbs covers the use of the estate in general: χρᾶσθαι καὶ διοικεῖν, (‘dispose and administer’), later ἀπολαύειν (‘benefit from’), οἰκονομεῖν (‘dispense’), ἐπιτελεῖν (‘accomplish’); specific acts of alienation inter vivos: πωλεῖν (‘sell’), ὑποτίθεσθαι (‘mortgage’); the composition of a new will: μεταδιατίθεσθαι (‘write a new will’), παραχωρεῖν (‘cede’), ἑτέροις ἐπιτελεῖν (‘undertake to the benefit of others’), μεταμερίζειν (‘undertake new disposition’); the invalidation of the present one: πρὸς ἀκύρωσιν ἄγειν τήνδε τὴν διαθήκην (‘take for invalidation the present will’), ἀναιρεῖσθαι ἢ ἀκυροῦν τήνδε τὴν διαθήκην (‘repeal and annul the present will’). Later texts avoid κύριον εἶναι and express capacity in other ways: ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν, δεσποτείαν ἔχειν (‘have capacity’, ‘authority’), followed by the infinitive. All types of activities are represented in P.Oxy. III 495.2–3 (182–189 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἐφʼ ὃν μὲν περίειμι χρόνον ἔχειν με τὴν τῶν ἰδίων ἐξουσίαν ὃ ἐὰν βού|3[λωμαι κατʼ αὐτῶ]ν̣ ἐπιτελεῖν καὶ ἀναιρεῖσθαι ἢ ἀκυροῦν τήνδε τὴν διαθήκην [ἀ]νεμποδίστως ὃ δʼ ἂν ἐπιτελέσω κύριον ὑπάρχειν (‘For as long as I live I shall have authority over my property to undertake in its regard without hindrance whatever I wish, to repeal and annul the present will, and whatever I undertake will be valid’). (transl.: editio princeps, pp. 204-205). The Roman P.Hamb. I 72.9–16 (II/III CE, Unknown Provenance) takes a different approach. It does not anticipate the future invalidation of the present will but sanctions any past or future acts as if they were introduced by the present act: si quid ego pọst h[o]c ṭestamentum meum nuncupatu[m -ca.?- ] | 10 codicillis charta membrana aliove quo generẹ [-ca.?-] | 11 scrịp̣[tum signatumque re]lị[quero, quo non recto tes]|12tameṇ[ti iure l]ẹg̣um[v]ẹ ḍari quid aut fieri· iu[sse]|13ro, [aut si quid] vel vi[v]us ḍeḍi donavi · deder[o -ca.?- ] | 14 doṇaveṛ[o vel li]ḅẹṛum liberamve esse vetueṛ[o -ca.?- ] | 15 {au[t]} se{e}ṛ[vum s]ẹ[rvam]ṿẹ, ratum esto ac ṣi in hóc t[es]| 16 t[am]eṇṭọ cau[tum] c̣ọṇprehensumve esset (‘If, after this will has been drawn up in codicils, on parchment, or in any other type of [instrument], written and signed, I will leave behind any document in which I will order that anything should be given or undertaken contrary to the precepts of the will and laws, and if I have given, donated, will have given or donated, will have prohibited my son, daughter, slave, both male and female (from doing anything), let this be considered as if it was set out and incorporated in this very will’). P.Cair.Masp. III 67312.28–34 (567 CE, Antinoopolis) takes up the same concept: εἰ δὲ δόξῃ μοι μετὰ ταῦτα | 29 κ[ω]δικίλλον̣ ἢ κα̣ὶ̣ κ̣ω̣δικίλλους θέσθαι καὶ ἕτερα ἐν αὐτοῖς | 30 κεφάλαια διατυπῶσα̣ι̣, βο̣ύ̣λ[ο]μ̣[α]ι̣ [κα]ὶ̣ [κελ]εύω τὸν παρʼ ἐμοῦ | 31 γενησόμενον κωδικίλλον ἢ τοὺς παρʼ ἐμοῦ γενησομένους | 32 κωδικίλλους ἔχειν καὶ ἕξειν τὴν ἰδίαν δύναμιν καὶ τὸ | 33 ἐκ νόμων κῦρος ὡς κεκομφιρματευμένους ἐν τα̣ύ̣τ̣ῃ μο(υ) | 34 τῇ διαθήκῃ. (‘If I decide, after this, to compose a codicil, one or many, and to make additional dispositions in them, I wish and command that the codicils, one or many, that I may in the future compose have and shall have their own authority and validity deriving from the laws as if confirmed in this very will’.)
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 339-340; Amelotti (1966): 161-163; Strobel (2014): 48-49, 169-171.
akyr.: ἀκυροῦν τὴν διαθήκην ταύτην; akyrosis: πρὸς ἀκύρωσιν ἄγειν; apolau.: πάντων τῶν ἐμῶν μετρίων ἀπολαύειν; chr.: χρησομεθα; desp.: ἔχω τὴν δεσποτείαν τῶν πραγμάτων; diath.: διαθέσθαι; epitel.: ἐπιτελεῖν; exous.: ἔχειν αὐτὸν τὴν κατὰ τῶν ἰδίων πάντων ὁλοσχερῆ ἐξουσίαν; hypotith.: ὑποτίθεσθαι; kyrion: κύριον εἶναι τῶν ἐμῶν; mesiteu.: μεσιτεύειν; metadiath.: μεταδιατίθεσθαι; metatith.: μετατίθεσθαι; oikonom.: οἰκονομεῖν; parasynch.: παρασυγχωρεῖν
BGU I 86.23-25 (155, SokN) [meriteia; exous.: pol., hypoth., parasynch.]; 183.10-27, ll. 25-27 (85, SokN) [meriteia; exous.: pol., hypoth., diath., ἀπαραποτίστως]; II 483.7 (II, ArsN) [meriteia; oikonom.]; VI 1285.4 (110A, Herak) [diatheke; kyrion]; VII 1654.5-7 (98-117, PtolEu) [diatheke; kyrion: metadiath., akyr., ἀνεμποδίστως]; CPR VI 1.4 (125, PtolEu) [diatheke; kyrion: pol., hypoth., metadiath., oikonom. (part)]; 72.4-6 (I, HermN) [kyrion: dioik., oikonom.]; P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.66-73 (570, Antin) [diatheke; krat.: NOM., DESP., EPIKRAT.]; 67312.34-35 (567, Antin); P.Col. VII 188.5-6 (320, Kar) [diatheke; despot.]; X 267.3-4 (180-192, Ox) [diatheke; exous.: epitel., akyrosis]; P.Coll.Youtie II 83.12-13 (353, Ox) [hereditary disposition; εἶναι ὑπʼ ἐμέ]; P.Dryton 3.1.2 (126A, Path) [kyrion]; 4.2 (126A, Path) [diatheke; kyrion]; P.Dura 16, B.6 (Il, Dura Europos); P.Flor. III 341.2-3 (II, Ox?) [diatheke]; P.Grenf. I 24.4 (139A-132A, Krok) [diatheke]; P.Gron. 10.5-7 (VI?, UP); P.Hamb. I 72 .9-13 (II/III, UP) [Roman, see above]; 73.10-12 (II, Phil?) [Roman]; P.Köln II 100.2-5 (133, Pim[ ]) [diatheke; exous.: epitel., metadiath., akyrosis]; XII 487.2-3 (117-138, Ox) [chr., dioik.]; P.Lips. I 29.4-5 (295, Herm) [apolau.]; II 149.6-7 (199, Ox) [diatheke; exous.: epitel., metadiatith., akyrosis]; P.Lond. I 77.14-15 (c. 610, Hermonthis) [apolau.]; II 219vb.5 (IIA, Itos) [diatheke; kyrion]; 288.31-36 (90, SokN) [meriteia; exous.: pol., metatith., hypotith., ἀμέμπτως]; 294.33-60, ll. 46-57 (109, PtolEu) [meriteia; exous.: metadiatith., parach., epitel., metamer., oikonom., ἀνεμποδίστως]; V 1727.21-27 (583/4, Sy) [enapolaun., chr.]; VII 2015.9 (242A, Memphis) [dioik.]; P.Mich. VII 439.12-16 (147, Ox) [Roman]; IX 549.6-7 (117/8, Kar) [diatheke]; P.Oxy. I 104.8-9 (96, Ox) [kyrion: chr., dioik.]; 105.2-3 (118-138, Ox) [exous.: metadiatith.]; III 489.4-5 (117, Ox) [kyrion: chr., oikonom., metadiatith.]; 490.3-4 (124, Ox) [exous.: epitel., metadiatith., akyrosis]; 491.3-4 (126, Ox) [exous.: epitel., metadiatith., akyrosis]; 492.4 (130, Ox) [diatheke; exous.: epitel., metadiatith., akyrosis]; 494.3-5, 25-27 (156, Ox) [diatheke; exous.: diatel., metadiath., akyr.]; 495.15-16 (182-189, Ox) [diatheke; exous.: ἀναιρεῖσθαι, akyr.; ἀνεμποδίστως]; 634.3-4 (126, Ox) [diatheke; exous.: epitel., metadiatith., akyr.]; 646.3 (117-126?, Ox); 649.2-3 (Is/II, Ox); 652.4-5 (Is/IIe, Ox) [diatheke; exous.: epitel., matediatith.*, akyrosis]; XXII 2348.40-41 (224, Ox) [Roman]; XXXVIII 2857.21-26 (134, Ox) [Roman]; LXVI 4533.2-3 (Il/IIe, Ox) [diatheke; exous.: epitel.; metadiatith., akyrosis]; P.Petr.2 I 1.1-31, l. 9 (238/7A, Krok?) [diatheke; dioik.]; 1.87-98, l. 95 (238/7A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; 2.31-44, ll. 37-38 (238/7A, ArsN) [diatheke; dioik.]; 3.8-37, ll. 16-17 (238/7A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; 3.64-95, l. 72 (238/7A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; 4.5-6 (238/7A, Krok?) [diatheke; dioik.]; 6.1-26, l. 3 (238/7A, ArsN) [diatheke; dioik.]; 6.27-47, ll. 34-35 (238/7A, ArsN) [diatheke; dioik.]; 7.5 (238/7A, Krok?) [diatheke; dioik.]; 9.8-19, l. 15 (238/7A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; 11.10-11 (238/7A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; 13.4-5 (238/7A, ArsN) [diatheke; dioik.]; 14.9-10 (238/7A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; 15.1 (238/7A, ArsN); 16.12-40, ll. 20-21 (236/5A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; 17.15-40, ll. 22-23 (236/5A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; 17.41-49, ll. 47-48 (236/5A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; 19.3-4 (236/5A, ArsN) [diatheke; dioik.]; 22.1-14, l. 9 (235/4A, Krok?) [diatheke; oikonom.]; 22.15-32, ll. 21-22 (235/4A, ArsN) [diatheke; dioik.]; 24.15-38, ll. 24-25 (226/5A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; 24.39-57, ll. 45-46 (226/5A, Krok?) [diatheke; dioik.]; 25.8-38, l. 15 (226/5A, Krok) [diatheke; dioik.]; P.Scholl 5.2-5 (I/II, Tholt) [diatheke]; P.Sijp. 43.2 (119/20, OxN) [diatheke; exous.: epitel., metadiatith., akyr.]; P.Wisc. I 13.3-4 (IIe, Ox) [diatheke; exous.: epitel., metadiatith., akyrosis]; SB V 7559.13-15 (118, Teb) [meriteia; exous., oikonom.]; 7630.9-24, ll. 20-22 (172-175, Alex?) [Roman]; VI 9377.12-13 (138, Teb) [meriteia; exous.: oikonom.]; VIII 9642.4.17 (117-137, Teb) [meriteia; exous.: pol., hypotith., metadiatith.]; 9642.5.20-24 (139-161, Teb) [meriteia; oikonom.]; 9642.6.14-16 (c. 133, Teb) [meriteia; oikonom.]; XII 10888.14-16 (119, Teb?) [meriteia; oikonom.]; XVI 12334.6-22, ll. 7-8 (IIl, Phil); XVIII 13168.2 (123A, Path) [kyrion]; 13232.6 (I, Haueris); XX 14379.6-7 (320, Kar) [diatheke; despot.]; XXX 17458.18-19 (122/3, Kar) [exous.: pol., parach., hypoth., mesit., metadiath., oikonom.]; SPP I p. 6f. ll. 8-9 (c. 460, Antin); XX 35.5-6 (235, HerakN).
5. Epitropoi (royal)
Category: Testamentary
This clause, which names the epitropoi, is unique to the Petrie wills and is not attested in any other Egyptian papyrus. In two cases—P.Petr.2 I 1.69–86, ll. 70–74 (238/7 BCE, Arsinoites) and 18.13–14 (236/5 BCE, Theogonis)—the epitropoi are private persons; in all others they are the reigning couple, Ptolemy III, Berenike II, and their children. The regnal formula varies, as in P.Petr.2 I 16.95–122 (236/5 BCE, Krokodilopolis): ἐπιτρόπους δὲ αἱροῦμαι βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον τὸν Πτολεμαίου | 109 καὶ Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Ἀδελφῶν καὶ βασί[λισσαν] Βερενίκην τὴν βασιλέως | 110 Πτολεμαίου ἀδελφὴ[ν] καὶ [γυν]αῖκα καὶ τὰ τούτ[ων τέκνα. -ca.?- ] (‘And as guardians, I choose King Ptolemy son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, the Sibling-Gods, and Queen Berenike, the sister and wife of King Ptolemy, and their children’).
Bibl.: Arangio-Ruiz (1906): 105-108; Kreller (1919): 375-377; Vandorpe (2002): 29-32.
P.Petr.2 I 1.1-31, ll. 14-18 (238/7A, Krok); 1.69-86, ll. 70-74 (238/7A, ArsN) [a private person]; 2.31-44, ll. 41-44 (238/7A, ArsN); 3.8-37, ll. 24-26 (238/7A, Krok); 3.38-63, ll. 49-52 (238/7A, Krok); 3.64-95, ll. 82-85 (238/7A, Krok); 4.13 (238/7A, Krok?); 7.12-15 (238/7A, Krok?); 8.1-4 (238/7A, ArsN); 11.14-15 (238/7A, Krok); 14.17-20 (238/7A, Krok); 15.5-7 (238/7A, ArsN); 16.12-40, ll. 24-27 (236/5A, Krok); 16.41-66, ll. 53-55 (236/5A, Krok); 16.67-94, ll. 81-84 (236/5A, Krok); 16.95-122, ll. 108-110 (236/5A, Krok); 17.1-14, ll. 1-3 (236/5A, ArsN); 17.15-40, ll. 26-29 (236/5A, Krok); 18.13-14 (236/5A, Theog) [a private person]; 22.15-32, ll. 29-32 (235/4A, ArsN); 23.4-7 (235/4A, ArsN); 24.1-14, ll. 1-2 (226/5A, ArsN); 24.15-38, ll. 27-30 (226/5A, ArsN); 24.39-57, ll. 54-56 (226/5A, Krok?); 25.8-38, l. 38 (226/5A, Krok); 27.2-3 (226/5A, ArsN); 28.2-3 (226/5A, ArsN); 30.19 (IIIs, ArsN).
6. Cretio
Category: Testamentary
In Roman wills, the cretio is the means by which legal heirs take possession of and title to the estate. It is attested in 16 documents. The concurrent Latin formulation may be found in P.Diog. 10.3–5 (211 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis): cernịtoque | 4 hereditatem meam infra dịẹṃ centesimum proximis qua ṣc̣ịet | 5 poterit‹que testari se› heredem esse s(ine) d(olo) m(alo) (‘Let (my heir) claim my inheritance before the one hundredth day from that day in which he gains knowledge (and) is able (to declare) that he is my heir without evil intent’). The Greek text routinely reads (P.Princ. II 38. 4–5: c. 264 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis): προσερχέσθω δὲ τῇ κληρονομίᾳ μου ἐν ἡμέραις ρ ταῖς ἐπι|5[σήμοις] μου ὅταν γνῷ καὶ δύνηται μαρτύρασθαι ἑαυτὴν εἶναί μοι κληρον[ό]μον (‘And let (my heir) enter upon my inheritance within the one hundred days that are reserved for the commemoration of the deceased, as soon as he knows and is able to testify that he is my heir’). Cf. also PSI XI 1027 = CPL 213 = FIRA III 59 (151 CE, Oxyrhynchos), in which the performance of the cretio is recorded.
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 121-124; Taubenschlag (1955): 214-216; Amelotti (1966): 123-130; Kaser (1971): 716-717; (1975): 525-526; Migliardi Zingale (1988): 9-10; Nowak (2014): 147-153; Strobel (2014): 41-43.
BGU I 326.1.7-10 (189/194, Kar); VII 1696.a.4-6 (II, Phil); CPR VI 76.19-21 (III, UP); P.Diog. 9.6-9 (186-210?, Phil?); 10.3-5 (211, PtolEu); P.Mich. VII 437.4-5 (II, UP); P.Oxy. VI 907.5-6 (176, Ox); XXII 2348.4-5? (224, Ox); XXXVIII 2857.7-9, 14-15 (134, Ox); LII 3692.6-10 (II, Ox); P.Princ. II 38.4-5 (c. 264, PtolEu); P.Select. 14.5-7 (II, ArsN); P.Stras. IV 277.11-16 (IIIs, ArsN); PSI VI 696.4-7 (III, ArsN); XIII 1325.9-24, ll. 11-13 (172-175, Alex); SB V 8265.3-4 (335/6, ArsN); SPP XX 35.12 (235 HerakN).
7. Substitutio
Category: Testamentary
In the protasis, the event of the heirs’ death is described through the routine verbs of death reported in ‘the act of bequeathal’: τελευτάω, ἀνθρώπινον πάσχω. One papyrus, P.Oxy. XXVII 2474.25–28 (III CE, Oxyrhynchos), uses the expression ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γίγνομαι. The verb stands in the aorist with the exception of P.Lond. II 288.28–29 (90 CE, Soknopaiou Nesos), where the present tense is invoked, but the reading should be reconsidered: ἐὰν δ̣ὲ̣ ε̣ῖ̣̣̔ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ τ̣έκνω(ν) | 29 τελευτῆι vac.? ἀδ̣ι̣[ά]θ[ετος]. The verb is frequently given in the infinitive and introduced by συμβαίνω, which is used only in the aorist tense. The relative apotropaic clause ὃ μὴ εἴη appears in two documents: P.Colt.Ness. III 115.6–9 (VI CE, Nessana); P.Oxy. XXVII 2474.25–28 (III CE, Oxyrhynchos). The circumstances of the death are commonly expressed through the formulation ἄτεκνος ἢ καὶ ἀδιάθετος (‘childless and intestate’). The apodosis will then express the devolution of the share of the deceased upon his co-heirs. The verb that reports this may be ἀνατρέχω (‘revert’) καταντάω (‘fall’) or πέμπω (here: ‘convey’). The subject may be expressed by the noun μέρος (τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ). The beneficiaries who are to receive the share stand, in the case of εἶναι, in the genitive. P.Oxy. III 491.10 (126 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἐὰν δέ τινι τῶν τριῶν υἱῶν συμβῇ ἀτέκνῳ τελευτῆσαι ἔστω τὸ το[ύ]του μέρος τῶν περιόντων αὐτοῦ ἀδελφῶν ἐξ ἴσου (‘If any of the three sons happen to die childless, his share shall belong to his surviving brothers equally’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 195). With verbs denoting movement, the name of the beneficiary may be in the accusative, introduced by πρός or εἰς. Cf., e.g., P.Oxy. III 490.6-7 (124 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἐὰν δὲ συμβῇ τὸν Διονύσιον ἄτεκνον καὶ ἀδιάθετον τελευτῆσαι πεμφθήσεται] | 7 τὰ ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλευσόμενα [εἰ]ς τοὺς ἔγγιστά μου γένους ὄ̣[ντας (‘If Dionysios happens to die childless and intestate, the property devolving upon him from me shall be sent to my nearest relations’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 192).
Bibl.: Arangio-Ruiz (1906): 90-94; Kreller (1919): 362-366, 381-382. Strobel (2014): 43, 265-269.
BGU I 326.1.10-13 (189, Kar); CPR I 208.11-12 (II, ArsN?); VI 76.22-24 (III, UP); P.Bagnall 34.19-21 (I/II, Memphis?); P.Köln II 100.15-17 (133, Pim[]); P.Lond. II 288.28-31 (90, SokN); P.Oxy. III 490.6-7 (124, Ox); 491.10 (126, Ox); XXVII 2474.25-28 (III, Ox); P.Select. 14.23-25 (II, ArsN); P.Sijp. 43.13-14 (119/120, OxN); 44.7-8 (c. 130, Kar); SB XXX 17458.16-18 (122/3, Kar).
8. Dolos Abesto
Category: Testamentary
This routine wording, prohibiting a future malicious act in connection with the will in question, appears in Roman wills only. The Latin text is recorded as in P.Hamb. I 72.17 (II/III CE, Unknown Provenance): h(uic) t(estamento) · ḍ(olus) ṃ(alus) aḅ[e]sto. (‘With regard to this will, let all fraud be absent’.) The Greek text may follow the Roman prototype literally, using the dative as well. Cf., e.g., P.Select. 14.29 (II CE, Arsinoites): ταύτῃ τῇ] διαθήκη δόλος πονηρὸς ἀπέστω. Some scribes, however, prefer the genitive to the dative, deriving from ἄπειμι (LSJ, s.v. A). Greek texts also exhibit the asyndetic combination ἀπίτω ἀπέστω, Extended phrasing is also attested. Cf., in particular, P.Oxy. XVI 1901.54-56 (VI CE, Oxyrhynchos): δόλος φθόνος] | 55 πονηρὸς ἀπίτω ἀπέστω ταύτης μου τῆς διαθήκης κ̣α̣λ̣ῶ̣ς̣ [ἐχούσης ποιηθείσης] | 56 ὑπάτοις τοῖς προκειμένοις (‘May guile and malice depart and be absent from this my will, which holds good having been made in the consulship aforesaid’). (transl.: editio princeps, p. 125).
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 340; Amelotti (1966): 164-165; Strobel (2014): 49-50; Nowak (2015): 202-203.
BGU I 326.2.3 (189, Kar); VII 1655.45 (169, Phil); 1695.b2.1 (157, Alex); P.Cair.Masp. III 67324.8-9 (VII, Aphr); P.Diog. 9.24 (186-210, Phil?); P.Hamb. I 72.17 (II/III, UP); 73.12-13 (II, Phil?); P.Lond. I 77.59-65 (c. 610, Hermonthis); P.Mich. VII 439.10 (147, Ox); P.Oxy. XVI 1901.54-56 (VI, Ox); XXXVIII 2857.26-27 (134, Ox); P.Select. 14.29 (II, ArsN); P.Vat.Aphrod. 7.13-14 (546/7, Aphr); PSI XIII 1325.9-25 l. 21 (138-161, Alex?); SB V 8265.15 (335/6, ArsN); SPP I p.6ff. ll. 28-29 (c. 460, Antin).
9. Emptio Familiae
Category: Testamentary
The Roman testamentum per aes et libram concludes by documenting the fiduciary sale of the estate. In the clause that provides evidence of the sale, the following are recorded (1) the emptor, whose activity is reported in the formulation fạṃ(iliam) pec[uni]a[mq]ue testam(enti) · f(aciendi) e(mit) quis (sestertio) ị[ -ca.?- ] (P.Hamb. I 72.18), and (2) the libripens (lib[rip(endis)] ḷ[o(co) qui]ṣ (loc. cit. l. 19), and the antetestus (ant(estatus est) qu[e]ṃ. (loc. cit. 20)). The Greek text offers a literal translation. Familiam pecuniamque is rendered by οἰκετείαν χρήματά τε. Testamenti faciendi causa is modified and expressed through the genitive absolute τῆς διαθήκης γεινομένης. The perfect emit is rendered through the aorist ἐπρίατο, and the ablativus pretrii sestertio nummo uno is rendered largely through the genitivus pretii σηστερτίου νούμμου ἑνός, although some Greek scribes (e.g., P.Bagnall 5.8) still apply the dative. The noun libripens finds expression in the participle of the verb ζυγοστατέω, in the genitive absolute ζυγοστατοῦντος, and the antestatus est in ἀντεμαρτύρατο with the antestatus in the accusative, or ἀντεμαρτυρήθη with the antestatus in the nominative. In both cases, the verb is in the aorist. BGU I 326.2.3–6 (194, Karanis?) may be treated as paradigmatic: οἰκετίαν χρή|4ματα τ[ε] τῆς διαθήκης γε[ι]νομένης ἐπρίατο Ἰούλιος Πετρωνιανὸς σηστερτίου νούμμου ἑνός, ζυ|5γοστα[τοῦ]ντος Γαίου Λουκρητίου Σατορνείλου, ἐπεγνοι (l. ἐπέγνω). ἀντ̣εμαρτύρατο Μᾶρκον Σεμπρώνιον Ἡρα|6κλια[νόν], ἐπεγνοι (l. ἐπέγνω) (‘On the making of this will Julius Petronianus bought the household and chattels for one sestertius, Gaius Lucretius Saturnilus, acting as scale-holder, acknowledged, and he called up Marcus Sempronius Heraclianus to witness (acknowledged)’).
Bibl. Kreller (1919): 329-330; Amelotti (1966): 163-169; Kaser (1971): 107-108; Nowak (2011b): 110-111; (2012): 575; Strobel (2014): 50-51.
Lat.: Latin
BGU I 326.2.4-6 (189, Kar); VII 1655.45-49 (169, Phil); P.Bagnall 5v.7-10 (213, Ox); P.Diog. 9.24-25 (186-210?, Phil?); P.Hamb. I 72.18-20 (II/III, UP) [Lat.]; 73.13-15 (II, Phil?); P.Laur. I 4.5-7 (246, ArsN?); P.Mich. VII 439.17-18 (147, Ox) [Lat.]; P.Oxy. XXII 2348.41-44 (224, Ox); XXXVIII 2857.27-30 (134, Ox); P.Select. 14.29-31 (II, ArsN); PSI XIII 1325.9-25, ll. 22-25? (138-161, Alex); SB V 8265.15 (335/6 ?, ArsN).
10. Legatum per Damnationem
Category: testamentary
In the legatum per damnationem, the heirs are made subject to the obligation to deliver the bequeathed object to the beneficiary: heres meus Titio Stichum servum meum dare damnas esto (Gai. 2. 193, and Kaser (1971): 743 with further formulations in n. 4). In Roman wills from Egypt, the clause is used introductorily and is followed by a mixture of the text of the fidei commissum the legatum per vindicationem. Cf., e.g., BGU I 326.1.13–2.1 (189 CE, Karanis): ὃς ἐάν μου κλη|14[ρον]όμος γέ[νητ]αι, ὑπεύθυνος ἔστω δῶναι ποιῆσαι παρασχέσθαι ταῦ|15[τα] πάντα, [ἃ ἐ]ν ταύτῃ τῇ διαθήκῃ μου γεγραμμένα εἴη, τῇ τε πίστ‹ε›ι |16[α]ὐτῆς παρακατατίθομαι (l. παρακατατίθεμαι). | 17 [Σαρ]α̣πιὰς δούλη μου, θυγάτηρ Κλεοπάτρας ἀπελευθέρας μου, ἐλευθέρα ἔστω | 18 [ᾗ κ]α̣ὶ̣ δίδωμι καταλ‹ε›ίπω ἀρούρας σιτικὰς πέντε, ἃς ἔχω περὶ κώμην Κα|19[ρα]νίδα ἐν τόπῳ λεγομένῳ Στρουθῷ, ὁμοίως ἄρουραν μίαν τέταρτον | 20 [κο]ιλάδος, ὁμοίως τρίτον μέρος οἰκίας μ̣ου καὶ τρίτον μέρος ἐκ τῆς αὐ|21[τ]ῆς οἰκίας, ὃ ἠγόρασα πρότερον παρὰ Πραπεθεῦτος μητρὸς Θασεῦτος, | 22 [ὁ]μοίως τρίτον μέρος φοινικῶνος, ὃν ἔχω ἔγγιστα τῆς διώρυγος, ὃ καλεῖται || 1 Παλαι[ὰ] Διῶρυξ (‘Whoever becomes my heir shall be liable to give, do, (and) surrender all these provisions that are incorporated into this will of mine and I entrust to her faith. Sarapias my slave, daughter of Cleopatra my freedwoman, shall be free, to whom I also give, bequeath five grain-bearing arouras, which I have in the vicinity of the village of Karanis, in a place called Strouthos, and in the same manner one and a quarter aroura of a depression and in the same manner one-third part of a house and a third of the same house that I purchased earlier from Prapetheus, his mother being Thaseus, and in the same manner one-third of a palm grove that I have near the canal that is called the old canal’). Cf. Dig. 32.95pr. (Maec. 2 fideicomm.): Quisquis mihi heres erit, damnas esto dare fideique eius committo, uti det, quantas summas dictavero dedero. (‘Let whoever shall be my heir be required to pay, and I charge him to pay, whatever sums I mention’).
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 348-349; Amelotti (1966): 130-135; Nowak (2014): 160-175; Strobel (2014): 44-47.
BGU I 326.1.13-16 (189, Kar?); VII 1696 b.13 (II, Phil); P.Cair.Masp. III 67312.104-109-112 (567, Antin); P.Diog. 9.9-11 (186-210?, Phil?); P.Oxy. XXII 2348.5-6, 12-13, 15-16 (224, Ox); XXXVIII 2857.5-6 (134, Ox); P.Stras. IV 277.6-7 (IIIs, ArsN); PSI XIII 1325.9-25, ll. 10-11 (138-161, Alex?).
11. Legatum per Vindicationem
Category: Testamentary
The term legatum is used here to denote a special form of bestowal from a testator to a beneficiary outside the bequeathal clause. The term is originally used in the Roman context, with the formulary well represented in Latin in P.Diog. 10.5–9 (211 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis): ḍ(o) l(ego) Lucretia‹e› Octauia‹e› [c]ọniu|gae meae, qui multum lạboraueṛịṭ in infirmitạṭem mẹạṃ, iug(era) | fr(umentaria) v semis in loco Potamoni secundum Seṛeni ḷa[t]uṣ et | partem dimidiam domum meam qui appellạtuṛ i( )p̣\i/ ̣ari (‘I give and bequeath to Lucretia Octavia, my wife, who took much pain on account of my weakness, five and a half grain-bearing iugera in a location called Potamon near the land of Serenus, and half a share of my house, which is called …’). For the Greek version, see, e.g., P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2857.16–19 (134 CE, Oxyrhynchos): Τιβερίωι | 17 [Κλαυ]δ̣ίῳ Θεωνᾷ συν[εξελευθ]έρῳ μου δίδωμι καταλ‹ε›ίπω (δραχμὰς) ἑκατόν. | 18 Τιβερίῳ Κλαυδίῳ Δημ̣[η]τ̣ρ̣ί̣ῳ σ̣υν̣ε̣ξ̣ελευθέρ[ῳ] μου δίδωμι κα|19τ̣α̣λ̣‹ε›ί̣π̣ω̣ δραχμὰς ἑκα̣[τ]ό̣ν (‘To Tiberius Claudius Theonas, my fellow-freedman, I give and leave a hundred drachms. To Tiberius Claudius Demetrius, my fellow freedman, I give and leave a hundred drachms’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 78). Some testators use different vocabulary, employing the verb διατάσσω (object in the accusative, beneficiary in the dative) expressing the act of bequeathal: P.Tebt. II 381.14–16 (123 CE, Tebtynis): τ[ῷ] δ̣ὲ Σανσνεῦτι διατε[τα]|15χέναι ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς ὀκτὼ{ι} ἃς καὶ κομιε‹ῖ›ται ὁ Σανσνεὺς παρὰ [τῆς] | 16 Θενπετεσούχου μετὰ τὴν τῆς Θαήσ[ι]ος τελευτήν (‘To Sansneus (Thaesis acknowledges) that she has bequeathed eight drachmas of silver, which Sansneus shall receive from Thenpetesouchos after the death of Thaesis’.) (transl.: editio princeps, pp. 227-228). This text, however, is not a Roman will but a meriteia.
A different text, associated with the legatum per vindicationem, albeit hesitantly, is first recorded in P.Oxy. VI 907.23–26 (276 CE, Oxyrhynchos): Αὐρηλίῳ̣ Δ̣ι̣ο̣ν̣υ̣σ̣άμμωνι φί̣λ̣ῳ̣ μ̣ο̣[υ] καταλείπω δοθῆναί τε βούλομαι κατʼ ἔτος ἐφʼ ὃν ζήσεται χρόνον ἀ[φʼ ὧν ἔχω – ca.26 -] | 24 περὶ Μῶ̣α̣ σειτικῶν ἀρου[ρ]ῶν οἴνου μὲν ἅμα τρύγῃ κεράμια τριάκοντα καὶ πυροῦ μέτρῳ δεκάτῳ τῷ Παῦ̣[νι μηνὶ ἀρτάβας – ca.14 – τῇ Δι]|25δύμῃ ̣ω̣ρ̣α ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣γ̣ε̣νο̣μ̣ε̣ν̣ ̣ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῆς ἀργυρίου τάλαντα τέσσαρα (‘To Aurelius Dionysammon I bequeath and I wish that there be given him during his lifetime from … and the cornland belonging to me at Moa thirty jars of wine at the vintage and … artabae of wheat by the tenth measure in the month of Pauni’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 251). The clause is also extensively attested in wills from the Byzantine period, during which it becomes the main means of bequeathing property. Cf. further above, ‘the bequeathal clause’. A case in point is P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.276–285 (570 CE, Antinoopolis): βούλομαι δὲ καὶ κελεύω κ̣αὶ πάλ̣[ιν δω]ροῦμαι τῷ προειρημένῳ ἁγίῳ μονα̣σ̣[τηρίῳ] | 276 Ἄπα Ἱερημίου, διὰ τοῦ θε[οφ]ιλεστάτ[ου] Ἄπα Βησᾶ τοῦ προλεχθέντος ἡγουμένο[υ] | 277 καὶ τῶν μετʼ αὐτὸν μετ[απ]αραληψο̣μένων τὴν τοῦ τόπου ἡγουμενί̣α̣ν̣, τὸ και[νὸν] | 278 σκαφίδιόν μου ἐκ τῶν ἐμῶν δύο σκαφιδίων ἐξηρτισμένω[ν], μετὰ πάσης | 297 αὐτοῦ ἐξαρτίας ὡς ἔ̣στιν κ̣α̣ὶ̣ τῆς προκτ̣ητικῆς ἐγγράφου [πράσ]εως, ἐλθὸ[ν] | 280 εἰς ἐμὲ̣ ἀ̣π̣ὸ ἀ̣[γορασ]τικοῦ δ̣ικαίου παρά τινων Ἀνταιοπολιτῶν, παρʼ ὧν κ̣ε̣ιμέν̣[ην] | 281 ε̣ἰ̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἔ̣σ̣χ̣ον̣ κα[τ]έχω τὴ[ν] πρᾶσιν ἧν ἀρτίως βούλομαι ἐκδοθῆ[ναι τ]ῷ αὐ̣[τῷ] τόπῳ | 282 ὑπὸ πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ ἐξουσίαν [ε]ἶνα̣[ι] δ̣[ιην]ε̣κῶς αὐτοτ̣ε̣λ̣ῆ̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ α̣ἰώ̣[νιον] κ̣α̣τ̣ο̣χὴ[ν] | 283 καὶ κυριότητα καὶ χρῆσι̣ν̣ κ̣α̣ὶ κομ̣ι[δὴ]ν προσόδου αὐτοῦ, ὡ̣ς̣ ε̣ἴ̣κ̣ο̣ς̣ [το]ῦτ̣ο | 284 ὑπὲρ ἀφέσεως ὁμοίως τῶν ἐμῶν π̣λ̣ημμελημάτων πρὸς̣ Θ(εὸ)ν̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ [ψ]υχῆ[ς] | 285 ἐμῆς \εἰς/ ἴ[ασ]ιν (‘I wish and order and again present to the aforesaid sacred monastery of Apa Hieremias through the most god-loved Apa Besas, who has been proclaimed abbot and through those succeeding him as abbots of the abbey, the joint skiff of mine, out of two skiffs that have been fully furnished, with all its equipment as stated in the written act of sale recording the previous owners, which came into my hands by virtue of an act of purchase from several residents of Antinoopolis, from whom I received and hold the act of sale of the object that I now wish to be completely given to said abbey to perpetually be under its full and absolute capacity, eternal possession and ownership, usufruct and extraction of produce, since it is befitting for the absolution of my sins before God and salvation of my soul’).
Bibl.: Kreller (1919) 348-349; Strobel (2014): 44-47; Nowak (2015): 160-175.
BGU I 326.1.18-2.1, col. 2.17-18 (189, Kar) [codicillus]; VII 1695.b2.1 (157, Alex); CPR VI 76.1-17 (III, UP); P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.275-285, 293-301 (570, Antin) [‘Byzantine legatum’]; III 67312.99-104, 104-108 (567, Antin) [‘Byzantine legatum’]; P.Diog. 9.9-15, 18-23 (186-210?, Phil?); 10.5-9 (211, PtolEu); P.Hamb. I 73.8-9 (II, Phil?) [‘Byzantine legatum’]; P.Mich. VII 437.5 (II, UP); 439.9?-10 (147, Ox); P.Oxy. III 634. 5-6, 7-8 (126, Ox); VI 907.22-26 (276, Ox) [‘Byzantine legatum’]; XX 2348.16-19 (224, Ox); XXXVIII 2857.2.16-19 (134, Ox); P.Princ. II 38.5-11? (c. 264, PtolEu); P.Select. 14.8-20 (II, ArsN); P.Stras. IV 277.7-8 (IIIs, ArsN); VII 684.22-25 (117-138, UP); P.Tebt. II 381.14-16 (123, Teb) [διατάσσω]; P.Vat.Aphrod. 7.11-13 (546/7, Aphr) [‘Byzantine legatum’]; PSI IX 1040.19-34 (III, Ox) [διατάσσω]; XIII 1325.9-25, ll. 11-15, 18-20 (172-175, Alex ?); SB XXX 17458.12-14 (122/3, Kar).
12. Noncompliance of Heirs (legatum)
Category: Testamentary
One document only, P.Cair.Masp. III 67324.2-8 (before 525/6 CE?, Aphrodite ?) accords the legatees remedies in the event that the heirs fail to comply with the testator’s will. βούλομαι δὲ καὶ το(ῦ)το, ὡς εἰ συμβαίη τῇ ῥᾳθυμ̣[ίᾳ τὰς κληρο(νόμους) μου] | 3 θυγατέρας οὔσας μὴ κατ̣αβα̣[λ]εῖ[ν] ε̣ὐ̣[γνω]μόνως, ἢ τοὺς κληρονόμο(υ)ς αὐτῶν, | 4 τὴν προορισθεῖσαν παρʼ ἐμο(ῦ) προσφ̣[ο]ρὰν τῷ ἁγίῳ μοναστηρίῳ σίτου τε καὶ οἴν̣[ο(υ)] | 5 τ̣[ ̣ ̣ -ca.?- ]χ[ ̣ ̣]τ̣ο̣(υ) τρυγηθέντος, κελεύω τ̣ὸν εὐλαβέστατον πρεσβύτερον το(ῦ) αὐτο(ῦ) | 6 μοναστηρίο(υ) καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ \εὐλαβ(εστάτους)/ μονάζον̣τας ἀπαιτῆσαι τατας (l. τα(ῦ)τα) ἑκόντας καὶ ἄ̣κοντας | 7 διὰ παντόός, πρὸς τῷ ἀκαταγνώστως προβῆναι τὰ τῆς ἁγίας προσφορᾶς εἰς ἀ̣ε[ὶ] | 8 τοὺς ἀποθανόντας προσδοκεῖν (‘I wish also this, that if it happens that due to indifference my heirs, being my daughters or their heirs, will not reasonably pay to the sacred monastery the endowment mentioned by me above of wheat and wine gathered, I order the most reverent priest of the same monastery and those living in it as monks to collect it, willfully or not, continually, in addition to the expectation that sacred endowments will unexceptionably always be prosperous for the dead’).
13. Quasi Legatum
Category: Testamentary
In the context of hereditary dispositions, the verb δίδωμι is used to denote special measures that the principal heirs must take. In P.Dryton 4.14–20 (126 BCE, Pathyris), the imperative form, δότω, δότωσαν, is attested five times: (1) to assign a place for the building of a dovecote, (2) to defray the costs of building the dovecote, (3) to assign maintenance for the widowed wife, (4) to pay alimony to the underage children, and (5) to provide a dowry when the testator’s daughter comes of age. In the case of the construction costs, the children’s alimony, and the dowry, the subjects are expressed in the plural and their joint action is adverbially denoted: κατὰ κοινόν, ἐκ κοινοῦ, ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν. In the Roman period, the verb δίδωμι is used in the same context to assign a fixed amount from the principal heir to another family member. So in P.Oxy. I 104.22–25 (96 BE, Oxyrhynchos): καὶ δώσει | 23 ὁ αὐ[τὸ]ς υἱὸς τῇ γεγονυίᾳ μοι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς Ἀτρευς (l. Ἀτρέως) θυγατρὶ Τνεφερῶτι | 24 [μ]ετ[ὰ] τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρό[ς] μου τελευτὴν ἐν ἡμέραις τριάκοντα ἃς δια|25[τάσσ]ω̣ αὐτῇ ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὰς) τεσσαράκοντα (‘And said son shall give within thirty days after the death of my husband to the daughter born to me from my husband Atreus the forty silver drachms that I bequeath to her’). P.Petr.2 I 25.8–38 ll. 25–27, 35–37 (226/5 BCE, Krokodilopolis) is exceptional as it records the duty of the testator’s wife to perform her daughters’ ekdosis and the son’s duty to pay for the maintenance of a vineyard.
Bibl.: Arangio-Ruiz (1906): 79-90; Kreller (1919): 351 n. 25.
P.Dryton 4.14-20 (126A, Path); P.Köln XII 487.9 (117-138, Ox); P.Oxy. I 104.22-25 (96, Ox); III 649.6-7 (Is/II, Ox); LXVI 4533.6-7 (Il/IIe, Ox); P.Petr.2 I 25.8-38, ll. 25-27, 35-37 (226/5A, Krok); P.Ups.Frid. 1.16-19 (48, Dionysias).
14. Provisions in Will
Category: provisions, testamentary
In the Greek diatheke P.Oxy. III 494.16-18 (156 CE, Oxyrhynchos), the wife, who receives the right to dispose of the testator’s possessions, should support their joint son, who has been appointed heir: ἡ δʼ αὐτὴ γυνή μου χορηγήσει τῷ υἱῷ μου Δείῳ εἰς δ̣[ι]α̣[τρο]|17φὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην δαπάνην κατὰ μῆν[α] ἐν Ὀξυρύγχων πόλει πυροῦ μέτρῳ ἐξωδιασ̣τ̣ι̣κ̣ῷ̣ (l. ἐξοδιαστικῷ) ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ | 18 ἀρτάβας δύο καὶ δραχμὰς ἑξήκοντα καὶ ὑπὲρ ἱματισμοῦ κατʼ ἔτος δραχμὰς διακοσίας (‘And my said wife shall supply my son Deios on account of his sustenance and other expenses each month in the city of Oxyrhynchos two artabae of wheat by the measure used for payment…, sixty drachms and on account of clothing two hundred drachms yearly’).
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 362-366; Taubenschlag (1932a): 522.
15. Additional Assignments of Property (Free Wording)
Category: Testamentary
Beneficiaries are subject to terms resulting from their acceptance of the estate. No established formulation is attested. See P.Gron. 10.9–13 (VI CE?, Unknown Provenance): ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ ἐμὴ γνησι|10ωτάτη ἀδελφὴ Σενεπώνυχος τρεῖς ἀρούρας ἠπ‹ε›ίρου πρὸς λίβα τοῦ χ[ω]ρ̣ί̣[ο]υ | 11 ἠ̣[ξίω]σ̣έ̣ν̣ με παραχωρῆσαι αὐτῇ, τοῦτο κελεύω εὐθὺ μετʼ ἐμὴν τελευτὴν γενέσθαι, | 12 ὥστε ταύτην ἔχειν τὰς αὐτὰς τρεῖς ἀρούρας μετὰ το[ῦ] τρίτου μέ̣ρ̣ο̣υ̣ς̣ τῆς νήσου | 13 καὶ τόπ̣ο̣υ̣ Πκρῶ τοῦ ἀγράφως αὐτῇ πάλαι παραχωρηθέντος (‘Since my most genuine sister has asked me to cede to her three arouras of plain land west of the estate, I herewith command that after my death it will be so executed that she will hold said three arouras together with the one-third of the island and the place of Pkro, which have long since been ceded to her without written documentation’).
P.Gron. 10.9-13, 22-26 (VI?, UP); P.Hamb. I 73.6-8 (II, Phil?); P.Oxy. XIV 1638 (282, Ox) [diairesis]; PSI VI 689d.36-38 (420/1?, Ox); SB XII 10888.7-10 (119, ArsN).
16. Activa
Category: Testamentary
The activa clause regulates the recovery of claims. The surviving texts report different scenarios: P.Fouad I 33.21–24 (I CE, Unknown Provenance): a claim from the husband of the testatrix of the remainder of her dowry; P.Oxy. X 1274.1–5 (IIIm CE, Oxyrhynchos): an amount of money owed to the testator by contract; P.Lips. I 29.14–16 (295 CE, Hermopolis): sale, the remaining consideration; P.Vind.Tand. 17.18-27 (I CE, Soknopaiou Nesos), perhaps also P.Fouad I 35.12–14 (48 CE, Oxyrhynchos): regulation of the use of money deposited in a bank; and finally, P.Ryl. II 153 (169 CE, Hermopolis), in which the testator records two types of claims: the right of the guardian of his underage children to collect the opsonia (‘allowance’) to which he is entitled by virtue of his athletic crown (25–27) and claims for payment by a slave upon his manumission (37–39).
No established formulation or location is apparent. For a claim in the form of a dowry, cf., e.g., P.Fouad I 33.21-24 (I CE, Unknown Provenance): συγχωρε̣ῖ̣ ἡ Ταπε|22[τεῦρις μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτῆς] τελευ[τὴν] ἀπολύεσθαι τὸν ἄνδρα Σιρί|23[ωνα] τ̣ῆ̣ς̣ ὀ̣φ̣‹ε›ι̣λ̣ομ[ένης αὐ]τῇ ὑπ̣ʼ αὐ[τοῦ] κατὰ συγγραφοδιαθήκην | 24 [φερ]νῆς ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμῶν) φ̣ (‘Tapeteuris concedes that after her own death her husband Sirion shall be absolved of having to pay the dowry, in the amount of 700 drachms, that he owes her by virtue of a syngraphodiatheke’). For a contractual claim, see P.Lips. I 29.14-16 (295 CE, Hermopolis): γεινώσκειν (l. γιγνώσκειν) δέ σε̣ βούλομαι [ὅτι ἀ[πὸ] τ]ῶν ὀφειλομ[ένων τ]ῷ αὐτῷ υἱῷ μ[ο]υ | 15 [ὑπ]ὸ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ιου γυμνασιάρχου [Ἀ]λεξανδρείας ἀπὸ τιμῆς ὀθ̣ό̣νης ἀργυρίου και[νοῦ τά]λαντα δώδεκα μόνο[ν] μο[ι] προήκατο ἓν̣ | 16 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ καὶ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ θ]εβαικοῦ κνίδ[ι]α ἑκα[τ]ὸν πρὸς τὸ μετε[λ]θ̣εῖν̣ σε αὐτ[ὸ]ν περὶ τῶν λοιπ[ῶν ὀ]φειλομένων μοι ὑ̣[πʼ αὐτο]ῦ (‘I wish you to know that of the debts owes to the same son of mine by [ – – ] a gymnasiarch of the city of Alexandria, out of/from/of the price of fine linen, twelve talents of new coinage, I have been forwarded only one [ – – ]and one hundred knidia of Theban [ – – ], so that you shall proceed against him with regard to his outstanding debts’)
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 14-17.
CPR VI 1.14-16 (125, PtolEu); P.Fouad I 33.21-24 (I, UP); 35.12-14 (48, Ox); P.Lips. I 29.14-16 (295, Herm); P.Lond. III 1040.14-15 (534, Antin); P.Oxy. X 1274.1-5 (IIIm, Ox); P.Ryl. II 153.25-27, 37-39 (169, Herm); P.Vind.Tand. 27.17-18 (I, SokN); P.Wisc. I 14.11-13 (131, Sy).
17. Disavowal of Debts
Category: Testamentary
In two early Ptolemaic wills and nowhere else in extant documents, the testator adds a declaration that he is not liable for debts: P.Petr.2 I 7.8 (238/7 BCE, Krokodilopolis?): ὀφε]ίλω οὐθενὶ [οὐθέν (‘I owe no one anything’). See also P.Petr.2 I 9.8–19, l. 18 and 11.14 of the same date and provenance.
Bibl.: Clarysse (1991): 139-140.
18. Existing Debts
Category: Testamentary
Nineteen wills provide for the settlement of the testator’s debts. The verb that signifies debt, ὀφείλω, appears in subordinate clauses as a participle connected with the finite verb φαίνω. E.g., P.Hamb. IV 278.23–24 (190 CE, Tebtynis): ὅσα δὲ ἐὰν φα̣νῶ̣ ὀφ̣[είλουσα] | 24 δημόσια ἢ ἰ̈διωτικὰ χρέα. Derived from the same root are τὰ ὀφειλόμενα and the noun ὀφείλημα (always in the plural). The word χρέος is equally common at all times and in all contexts. Most scribes express the return of the debt via the terms ἀποδίδωμι or ἀπόδοσιν ποιέω, as well as διευλυτέω (διευλύτησις) and διορθόω (διόρθωσις). In P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.285–293 (570 CE, Antinoopolis), beyond the settlement of debt per se, the text indicates the origin of the money (λαβεῖν ταῦτα παρὰ Πέτρου (‘Let him take these from Petros’, l. 288) and stipulates the obliteration of the promissory note (ἀναλαβεῖν εἰς χιασμὸν τὴν ἐ̣[νεχυρασίαν(?)] | 293 ἣν ἔχει ὑπὲρ τούτω[ν] (‘Take for obliteration the act of pledge (?) which he holds on their account’). Six documents (see below) discuss a specific debt, usually to one of the beneficiaries. In the remaining 11 cases, the clause covers any potential debt. Only the diairesis P.Mich. IX 554.33–36 records both: [- ca.18 – ὅσα ἐὰν φαίνηται ὁ Γάιος Μι]νούκιος Ἀκύλας ὀφείλων ἤδη δημόσια ἢ ἰδιωτικὰ χρέα [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] | 35 [- ca.40 -] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ο[ ̣] ἃς δὲ ὀφεί[λει] Γάιος Μινούκιος Ἀκύλας τῇ ἀ̣δ̣ε̣λ̣[φῇ αὐτοῦ] | 36 [Μινουκίᾳ Θερμουθαρίῳ δραχμὰς τετρακοσίας ἀ]ποδώσει αὐτῇ μεθʼ ἐνια[υτ]ὸν ἕνα ἀτόκους (‘Whatever Gaius Minucius Aquilas manifestly owes, both public and private debt […], the three hundred drachms that Gaius Minucius Aquilas owes his sister, Minucia Thermoutharion, he shall repay her after one year, without interest’). For the Latin phrasing of the clause, see P.Diog. 10.9–10 (211 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis): si q[uid] ue|10nerit debitum (l. debiti) c̣auṣạ auṭ ạliquem rạtionem, ex̣[aequa]bi|tur ạḅ ḥerede mẹ[o] (‘If anything results on account of debt or any other account, it shall be settled by my heir’). The location of the clause varies; sometimes it is clustered with that providing for the burial rites.
Bibl.: Arangio-Ruiz (1906): 97-100; Kreller (1919): 368-369, 385, 386.
specific: specific debt with prospective payer; general: general liability for any occuring debt.
syntactical framework: expression of debt, expression of payment.
BGU I 183.10-26 ll. 24-25 (85, SokN) [specific: son; ἐφʼ ᾧ; ἃς ὀφίλει δραχμὰς; ἀποδώσουσιν]; CPR VI 1.16-17 (125, PtolEu) [specific: brother; ἐν οἷς ἐνοφειλομένοις ἐστὶν καὶ δάνειον; γενόμενον κατὰ πίστιν ἐπʼ ὀνόματος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ]; P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.285-293 (570, Antin) [specific; χρεωστῶ; λαβεῖν, ἀποδοῦναι, ἀναλαβεῖν εἰς χιασμόν]; P.Diog. 10.9-10 (211, PtolEu) [general; debitum; exaequabitur]; P.Eleph. 2.13-15 (284A, Eleph) [general; χρέος; ἐξέστω τοῖς υἱοῖς μὴ ἐμβατεύειν]; P.Lond. III 932.8-10 (211, Herm) [general; δάνεια: ἀποδιδόναι]; P.Mich. V 322a.33 (46, Teb) [ἃ ἐὰν φανῶσι ὀφείλοντες]; IX 554.34-47 (before 93, Ptolemais Euergetis) [general and specific]; XVIII 785 a+b.14-17? (47/61, PtolEu) [general; ὅσα ἐὰν φαίνηται ὀφείλων ἤδη δημόσια ἢ ἰδιωτικὰ χρέα; ἃς ὀφείλει; ἀποδώσει]; P.Oxy. I 104.19-22 (96, Ox) [specific: husband; περὶ τῶν ὀφειλομένων; ἐκπληρώσωσι]; III 491.5-6 (126, Ox) [general; ἃ ἐὰν φανῶ ὀφείλων χρέα: ἀποδοῦναι]; 494.21-22 (156, Ox) [general; ἃ ἐὰν φανῶ ὀφείλων: δώσει]; XIV 1638.25 (282, Ox) [general; τῶν πάντων ὀφιλομένων; τὴν ἀπόδοσιν ποιήσασθαι]; XXII 2348.18? (224, Ox) [general]; P.Select. 14.20-23 (II, ArsN) [general]; P.Sijp. 44.3-4 (c. 130, Kar) [general; ὅσα δὲ ἐὰν φαινῆται ὀφείλων ἤτοι δημόσια ἢ καὶ ἰδιωτικά: ἀποδώσει]; P.Stras. VII 603.29-30 (103-116, Teb) [general; ἰδιωτικῶν χρεῶν καὶ δημοσίων: διευλύτησιν]; P.Tebt. II 381.17-18 (123, Teb) [general; ὧν ἐὰν φανῆι ὀφείλουσα ἰδιωτικῶν χρεῶν: διευλυτώσει]; 465.23-25 (190, Teb) [general; ὅσα δὲ ἐὰν φανῶ ὀφ[είλουσα] | δημόσια ἢ ἰδιωτικὰ χρέα: ἀποδώσουσι]; PSI Congr. XI 5.6 (Ie/I, Teb) [specific: wife; ἀντὶ τῶν ὀφειλομένων αὐτῇ]; SB VIII 9642.6.11 (c. 133, Teb) [general; ὧν ἐὰν φανῇ ὀφείλων ἰδιωτικῶν χρέων: ἀπόδοσις]; XII 10888.11-14 (119, Teb?) [general; ὧν ἐὰν φανῇ ὀφείλων: ἀπόδοσις]; SB XXIV 16001.14 (168, Kar); SPP I p. 6-7, ll. 22-23 (c. 460, Antin) [specific ?; χρέα, ὀφειλόμενα; πληρῶσαι].
19. Burial Rites
Category: Duties, Testamentary
Α clause that anticipates and regulates the performance of burial rites is attested as an independent clause only for the Roman and Byzantine periods. It is recorded in both diaireseis and wills. In wills, the text is recorded in both Greek and Latin documents (below: ‘Lat’). The subject is dealt with toward the end of the document and may be followed by an account of the passiva. (E.g., SB VI 9377.10–12 (138 CE, Tebtynis); SB XII 10888.11-14 (after 119 CE, Arsinoites): πρὸς τὴν κληρον(όμον) | 12 οὔσης τῆς τοῦ Ἡρ̣ακ(λήου) κ̣ηδε̣ίας καὶ περ̣ιστο̣λ(ῆς) | 13 κ̣αὶ ἀποδ(όσεως) ὧν ἐὰν̣ φανῇ ὀφείλ(ων) καθʼ ὁν|14δ̣ηποτ(οῦν) τρ̣όπον) (‘The funeral rites, the laying-out, and the repayment of all apparent debts, in whatever form, will be incumbent upon my heiress’). As in the case cited above, the clause is occasionally phrased as a genitive absolute stating that the burial rites shall fall into the beneficiary’s sphere of responsibility (below: ‘sfr.’). However, there is a clear preference for formulating the clause as a directive introduced by the verb βούλομαι, θέλω, παρακαλῶ, κελεύω (e.g., BGU I 326.2.1 (194 CE, Karanis): ἐκκο[μι]σθῆναι περιστ[αλ]ῆναί τε ἐμαυτὸ[ν] θέλω) (below: ‘v.’), or the future indicative (below: ‘f.’), with the beneficiaries as the subject. Cf., e.g., P.Oxy. III 494.22-25 (165 CE, Oxyrhynchos): δώσει δὲ ἡ | 23 γυνή μου καὶ μετὰ τελευτὴν αὐτῆς ὁ υἱός μου Δεῖος τοῖς δούλοις μου καὶ ἀπελευθέρ[οι]ς εἰς | 24 εὐωχίαν αὐτῶν ἣν ποιήσονται πλησίον τοῦ τάφου μου κατʼ ἔτος τῇ γενεθλίᾳ μου ἐφʼ ᾧ δι|25έπειν̣ ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς ἑκατόν (‘and my wife, and after her death my son Dius, shall give to my slaves and freedmen for a feast which they shall celebrate at my tomb on my birthday every year one hundred drachmae of silver to be spent’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 205).
In cases of a directive, the dative (Lat.: ablative) or prepositional expressions are used to indicate the agent. The object of the clause is either payment for the burial, including the amount that should be spent (below: ‘pay.’), or the act of burial itself (below: ‘bur.’). In most cases, the clause deals only with the act of burial; the most common terms used for this purpose are περιστολή (‘laying out’), κηδεία (‘funeral’), and, more generally, ἐπιμέλεια, φροντίς τοῦ σώματoς, corporis cura. In the Byzantine period, the terms ἅγιαι προσφοραί and ἀγάπαι ὑπὲρ ἀναπαύσεως τῆς ἐμῆς ψυχῆς (‘holy offices and services for the repose of my soul’) are added. In two documents, however—the Roman P.Oxy. III 494.22–25 (156 CE, Oxyrhynchos) and the Byzantine P.Lond. I 77.56–59 (c. 610 CE, Hermonthis)—the deceased’s future commemoration is regulated as well.
Instructions for the construction of the tomb are also attested, although quite rarely. Cf. in particular P.Oxy. XXII 2348.31–38 (224 CE, Oxyrhynchos), where the ‘laying out’ of the deceased should also include this construction: τοῦ σώ]ματός μου | 32 [τὴ]ν̣ φ̣ρ̣[ο]ντίδα ἐντέλλομαι τοῖς αὐτο̣ῖ̣ς̣ υ̣ἱ̣ο̣ῖ̣ς̣ μου κ̣α̣ὶ τὸ σωμ̣άτ[ι]ό̣ν μου | 33 κ̣α[τ]α̣τ̣α̣φ̣ῆ̣να̣ι θέλω ἐν ᾧ ἡτοίμασα ὀρύγμα̣τ̣ι̣ πρὸς τῷ μνημείῳ τῆς προτε|34[ταγμέ]νης μακαρ{ε}ίτιδός μου γυναικὸς Ἡρακλείας. εἰς δὲ τὴν περιστολὴν | 35 β̣ο̣ύ̣λ̣ο̣μαι ἐξ ἴσου δοῦναι τοὺς υἱούς μου δραχμὰς πεντακοσίας σὺν ἀνοι|κοδ̣ο̣μ̣ῇ τύμβου | 36 ἐπακολουθούντων τῆς τε προτεταγμένης συμβίου | 37 μου Τασεῦτος καὶ Αὐρηλίων Ἀπίωνος τοῦ καὶ Ἀμμωνίου τοῦ προτεταγμένου | 38 καὶ Πτολλίωνος φίλου μου (‘I lay upon the aforesaid sons the charge of caring for my body, and I wish my body to be buried in the grave that I have prepared near the tomb of my aforesaid deceased wife Herakleia. I wish my sons to give in equal proportions five hundred drachmae towards the cost of my funeral dress together with the erection of a tomb, this to be supervised by my aforesaid companion Taseus and the aforesaid Aurelius Apion, also known as Ammonius, and my friend Aurelius Ptollio’). (transl.: editio princeps, p. 141).
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 369-371, 385-386; Amelotti (1966): 141-142, 159-161; Migliardi Zingale (2005): 269-278; Nowak (2011a): 117-126; (2015): 182-194; Strobel (2014): 160-168.
BGU I 183 10-26 l. 25 (85, SokN) [sfr.; bur.]; 326.2.1-2 (189, Kar) [v.; bur.]; III 896.7 (161-169, ArsN) [f.; bur.]; IV 1131.33-37 (13A, Alex) [diairesis, sfr.+f.; pay.]; VII 1655.57-59 (169, Phil) [f.; pay.]; 1695.b.2 (157, Alex) [lat.; v.; bur.+pay.]; CPR VI 1.13-14 (125, PtolEu) [f.; bur.+pay.]; P.Bagnall 34.15-17 (I/II, Mem?) [diairesis; f.; pay.]; P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.160-168 (570, Antin) [v.; bur.]; P.Diog. 10.12-13 (211, PtolEu) [lat.; v.; bur.]; 11.18-19 (213, PtolEu) [v.; pay.]; P.Fouad I 33.28-29 (I, UP) [v.; pay.]; P.Lips. I 29.11-12 (295, Herm) [unique; bur.]; 30.1-24 ? (III, Ox?) [f.; pay.]; P.Lond. I 77.56-59 (c. 610, Hermonthis) [v.; bur.]; II 288.27-28 (90, SokN) [bur.]; III 932.10 (211, Herm); P.Mich. V 322a.33-34 (46, Teb) [diairesis: f.; bur.]; VII 439.11-12 (147, Ox) [diairesis; f.; bur.]; IX 549.12 (117/8, PtolEu?) [v.; bur.]; P.Oxy. III 494.22-25 (156, Ox) [f.; bur. (commemoration)]; XVI 1901.48-50 (VI, Ox) [v.; bur.]; XXII 2348.29-38 (224, Ox) [v.; fun., supervision]; XXXVIII 2857.19-21 (134, Ox) [ed.: [τ]ὴν ἐπιμέλειαν | 20 τῷ κληρονόμῳ μου [κ]αταλείπω; bur.]; P.Select. 14.27-29 (IIe, ArsN) [v.; bur.]; P.Sijp. 44.4 (c.130, Kar) [f.; bur.]; P.Stras. IV 284.18 (176-180, PtolEu) [f.; bur.]; VI 546.1 (c. 155, UP) [f.; bur.]; VII 603.28 (103-116, Teb) [f.; bur.]; 684.21 (117-138, UP) [f.; bur.]; P.Tebt. II 381.16-17 (123, Teb) [f.; bur.]; P.Wisc. I 14.10-11 (131, Sy); PSI XII 1263.6-9 (166/7, Ox) [v.; bur., supervision]; XIII 1325.9-25, ll. 20-21 (138-161, Alex?) [v.; bur.]; PSI Congr. 5 l. 7 (Ila/Ie, Teb) [f.; bur.]; SB V 8265.14 (335/6 ?, ArsN) [f.; bur.]; VI 9373.11-15 (II, Teb); 9377.10-12 (138, Teb) [sfr.; bur.]; VIII 9642.1.11-14 (c. 112, Teb) [sfr.; bur.]; 9642.3.11-14 (125, Teb) [sfr.; bur.]; 9642.4.14-15 (117-137, Teb) [sfr.; pay.]; 9642.5.18 (139-161, Teb) [f.; pay.]; XII 10888.11-14 (119, Teb?) [sfr.; pay.]; XVIII 13308.39-40 (81-96, PtolEu?) [f.; bur.]; XXIV 16001.17 (168, Kar); SPP I p.6-7, ll. 26-28 (c. 460, Antin) [v.; bur.].
20. Guardianship
Category: testamentary
The appointment of guardians is recorded in twenty-nine documents, twenty-five wills, three marriage documents, and one diairesis. Four documents are Ptolemaic, one dates to the sixth century CE. The rest are Roman. The instrument recording the appointment could be meriteia, diatheke or a Roman will. The person who assumes the care of the underage children does not have to be termed guardian expressis verbis. This is the case in P.Diog. 11.19-22 (213 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis), where, instead of using the term epitropos the testatrix orders her mother and husband to ‘take care’ and ‘provide for’ (φροντίζειν, χoρηγεῖν) her son: τῆς δὲ μητρος (l. μητέρα) μ̣ο̣υ̣ | 20 Ἁ̣ρ̣[ποκ]ρ̣ατιαινης (l. Ἁρποκρατίαινην) καὶ του (l. τὸν) ἀνδρος (l. ἄνδρα) μου πατηρ (l. πατέρα) τοῦ υἱοῦ μου Λουκρήτ̣ι̣ο̣ν̣ | 21 Δ̣ι[ο]γ̣[έ]νην φρ̣ο̣ντίζειν το‹ῦ› υἱοῦ μου καὶ χωρηγ‹ε›ῖν τῇ τροφῖτι ὑπὲρ α̣ὐ̣|22το̣ῦ̣ τὰ τροφ‹ε›[ῖ]α ἐκ τῶν ἐ̣μῶν πάντων (‘Let my mother Harpokratiaine and my husband, who is also the father of my son, Loukretios Diogenes, take care of my son and furnish as sustenance to his benefit the provision from all my properties’).
Some scribes will suffice with recording the shear act of appointment, as seems to be the rule in particular in the Ptolemaic period. Cf., e.g., P.Dryton 2.21-23 (150 BCE, Latopolis): Ἐπίτρο[πον] | 22 [δὲ καταλείπ]ω Ἑρμ[ ̣]φιλο̣[ν] Παμφίλου Φιλωτέρε[ιον Δρ]ύτωνι Πα[μφίλου] | 23 [ὄντα συγγενῆ, ὁμ]οίως δὲ κ[αὶ Ἐ]σθλάδου τοῦ Ἐσθλάδ[ου] (‘As epitropos I leave behind Herm[o/a]philos, son of Pamphilos, of the deme Philoteris, being a relative of Dryton, son of Pamphilos, and in like manner of Esthladas son of Esthladas’) (transl., P.Dryton, p. 65), unless the text refers, as suggested by Vandorpe [P.Dryton., p. 30], to testamentary executor.
In the Roman period, the appointment clause is extensively developed. So in the case of BGU I 86.17-23 (155 CE, Soknopaiou Nesos): the clause exhibits the routine verb for the act of appointment (καθίστημι), the period for which the appointment is made (μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ τελευτήν (‘after his death’), μέχρι ἐὰν ἐν τῇ νόμῳ ἡλικείᾳ γένωνται (‘until they reach the legal age’); the appointed guardian stands in the accusative; besides his name, the document also reports the guardian’s form of acquaintance with the testator, and his occupation. The object of the care, the children, appears in the genitive. Ll. 17-20: ὁ αὐτὸς ὁ ὁμολογῶν καθίστηται (l. καθίσταται) μετὰ τὴν | 18 ἑαυτοῦ τελευτὴν τοῖς ἀφήλιξι αὑτοῦ τέκνοις Ὥρου (l. Ὥρῳ) καὶ Παβοῦτι ἐπίτροπον καὶ ἐπτροπευοντοι (l. ἐπιτροπεύοντα) αὐ|19τῶν, μέχρι ἐὰν ἐν τῇ νόμῳ ἡλικείᾳ γένο[νται] (l. γένωνται), τὸν γνήσιον αὑτοῦ φίλον Παβους (l. Παβοῦν) Σαταβοῦτος τοῦ Ἁρπα|20γάθου ἀπὸ τῆς προγεγραμμένης κώμης ἱερέα τοῦ αὐτοῦ θε[οῦ] (‘And the same declaring party appoints after his own death for his underage children, Horos and Pabous, as their guardian and manager, until they reach the legal age of puberty, his genuine friend Pabous son of Satabous son of Harpagathes from the above-stated village, a priest of the same god’).
In the following section, the clause records the duties of the guardian: the maintenance of the wards. The scribe specifies some categories: e.g., τροφή, ἔλαιον, ἱματισμός (‘nourishment’, ‘oil’ and ‘clothing’). Rather than prescribing a set quota, the guardian is allowed to provide for the children ‘as is befitting’. χωρηγήσ‹ε›ι δὲ ὁ ἐπίτροπος τοῖς | 20 ἀφήλιξι τέκνοις Ὥρου (l. Ὥρῳ) καὶ Παβοῦτι τὴν καθήκουσαν τροφὴν καὶ τὸ ἔλαιον καὶ τὸν ἱματισμὸν καὶ τὰ ἄ[λλα], | 21 ὅσα καθήκει (‘Let the said guardian supply the underage children with the befitting nourishment, oil, clothing and everything else that is proper’). The final section is unique to this document: the duty of the guardian to render an account of his activities after they have come of age: τοῦ Παβοῦτος διδό{υ}ντος τοῖς ἀφήλιξι, ὁπ[ό]τε ἐὰν ἐν τῇ νόμῳ ἡλικείᾳ γένονται (l. γένωνται), τη̣ν (l. τὸν) | 23 περὶ πάντων λόγων (l. λόγον) τ̣ο̣ῖ̣ς (l. τῆς) περὶ ἁπάσης πίστεως ο̣ὔσης περὶ τ[ὸ]ν Παβοῦν (‘And let Pabous surrender to the underage children, once they come of legal age, the report regarding all his activities, all the responsibility resting with Pabous’).
Other documents consider the position of the surviving wife. In some cases, the wife is appointed sole or joint guardian. Sole guardianship is stipulated in CPR VI 1.10-13, which stresses the wife’s exclusivity through the adjectives ἀνεπιτρόπευτος and ἀνεγλόγιστος (‘….without trustee and without being accountable’, so translated in P.Sijp. 44, p. 295) but also sets limits to her freedom of disposal of her children’s estate: [τ]ὴ̣ν γυ[ναῖκά μου ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] | 11 [ἐπί]τροπον κα ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣στασιν τῶ̣ν̣ ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἀφηλίκων τέκνων ἄχρι οὗ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ γένηται οὖσαν ἀν[επ]ιτρόπευτ[ον καὶ ἀ]νεγλόγιστ[ον – ca.13 -] | 12 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣τ̣ητον κα̣τ̣ὰ πάντα̣ τ̣ρ̣όπον οὐθὲν μέντοι ἁπλῶς ἐξαλλοτριοῦσαν οὐδὲ καταχρηματίζο̣υσαν τῶν ἀνηκόντ[ων ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣κα ̣ ἠ̣δὲ πα ̣[- ca.15 -] | 13 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ο̣ις τοῖς τέκνοις παραδότ̣ω̣ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτῶν Ἀφροδειτοῦς τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καθαρὰ ἀπὸ δημοσίων πάντων καὶ πάσης δ[απάνης] (‘(and I appoint) my wife as guardian of the children born to us from each other until they come of age, acting without a trustee and without being accountable, – – by all means, alienating however simply nothing nor disposing of any object that pertains to the guardianship. And Aphroditous, the mother of the children, shall hand over to them their property clear of any public charge and any expense’). ̣
Other testators appoint a male guardian but also establish the wife as a supervisor (epakolouthetria) of his activity. Much cited document is P.Oxy. VI 907.18-22 (276 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἐπίτροπον δὲ ποιῶ τῶν προκειμέ]|19νων ἀφηλίκων μου τέκνων τ[ριῶ]ν Ὡρείωνος καὶ Ἡρακλείδου καὶ Διδύμης ἕως ἂν οἱ μὲν ἄρρ[ενες τῆς ἡλικίας γένωνται ἡ δὲ θήλεια] | 20 ἀνδρὶ γαμηθῇ Αὐρήλιον Δημήτριον [τοῦ] Διονυσοθέωνος, ἐπακολουθούσης πᾶσι τοῖς τῇ ἐπιτροπείᾳ διαφέρ[ουσι τῆς προγεγραμμένης μου γυναικὸς] | 21 Ἰσιδώρας τῆς καὶ Πρείσκας, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο [οὐ βο]ύλομαι ἄρχοντα ἢ ἀντάρχοντα ἢ ἕτερόν τινα παρεντιθέναι ἑαυτ[ὸν – ca.29 -] (‘I appoint guardian of my three children aforesaid who are under age, Horion, Heraclides, and Didyme, until the boys attain majority and the girl is married, Aurelius Demetrius son of Dionysotheon, with the concurrence, that all that pertains to the guardianship, of my aforesaid wife Isidora also called Prisca; and accordingly, I do not wish any magistrate or deputy or any other person to intrude himself …….’(transl.: editio princeps, p. 251).
Bibl.: Arangio-Ruiz (1906): 102-105; (1930): 46-50; Kreller (1919): 377-379, 387, 388; Taubenschlag (1932a): 521-522; Amelotti (1966): 145-148, 149-151; Beaucamp (1992): 172-191; Montevecchi (1997): 47-52; Yiftach (2006b): 153-166; Strobel (2014): 38-39, 229-233.
acc.: accounts; app.: appointment ; adm.: administration; bw.: Byzantine will; d.: diatheke; mar.: marriage document; m.: meriteia; tal.: testamentum per aes et libram
BGU I 86.17-23 (155, SokN) [m.; app.; adm.; accounts]; 326.2.16-17 (189, Kar) [tal.; app.: ed.: ἐποίησα ἐπίτροπον τῇ ἰδίᾳ πίστ‹ε›ι]; CPR I 208.9-10 (II, ArsN?) [ἐπίτροπος ἀνεγλόγιστος]; VI 1.10-13 (125, PtolEu) [d.; app.: ἀνεπιτρόπευτον καὶ ἀνεγλόγιστον]; VI 76.18, 25-34 (III, UP) [tal.; adm.: φροντίσωσιν ὑπὲρ κληρονομίας (?)]; P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.225-274 (570, Antin) [bw.; admn with penalty clause]; P.Diog. 9.12-15 (186-210?, Phil?) [tal.; adm.]; 11.19-21 (213, PtolEu) [m.; adm.]; P.Dryton 1.17-18 (164, Diospolis Mikra) [d.; app.: ἐπίτροπον καταλείπω]; 2.21-23 (150, Latopolis) [d.; ἐπίτροπον καταλείπω]; 3.7-9 (126, Path) [d.; app.: ἐπίτροπον κατέστησεν]; 4.5-6 (126a Path) [d.; app.: ἐπίτροπον κατέστησεν]; P.Fouad I 33.24-25 (I, UP) [d.; app. ἐπίτροπον εἶναι ἀνεγλόγιστον]; P.Lips. I 28.20-22 (381, Herm) [adm.; ed.: ἐπὶ τῷ με ταῦτα αὐτῷ δια|21φυλάξαι καὶ ἀποκαταστῆσαι αὐτῷ ἐνήλικι γενομένῳ μετὰ καλῆς πίστεως;]; P.Lond. III 932.9-10 (211, Herm) [diairesis; adm.: τρέφειν, ἱματίζειν]; P.Mich. VII 439.4-8 (147, Ox) [tal.; app.: ed.: quam et anegḷogistam (?);]; P.Mich. XVIII 785 a+b.15-19 (47/61, PtolEu) [m.; app.: ἀνεκλογίστους]; P.Oxy. II 265.27-29 (81-96, Ox) [mar.: adm.]; III 491.8-10 (126, Ox) [d.; app.: εἶναι ἐπίτροπον]; 495.14-15 (182-189, Ox) [d.; adm.; πρόνοιαν ποιήσασθαι]; 496.11-13 (127, Ox) [d.; app.: ed.: ἔστω ἡ γαμουμένη κατὰ τὸ ἥ̣μισυ] ἢ̣ ὁ̣ ἔγγιστος καὶ ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ γαμοῦντ[ος] κατασταθησόμ[ε]νος κατὰ τὸ ἕτερον ἥμισυ ἀμφότεροι ἐπίτροποι;]; 497.12-14 (IIe, Ox) [d.; app. same as foreg.]; VI 907.18-22 (276, Ox) [tal./d.; app.: ἐπίτροπον ποιῶ; ἐπακολουθούσης τῇ ἐπιτροπείᾳ]; XXVII 2474.20-25, 36-46 (III, Ox) [tal.; app.: κηδεμόνα καθίστημι; adm.: πᾶσαν πίστ{ε}ιν μέλλοντα ἀποσώζειν]; P.Ryl. II 153.18-24, 33-35 (169, Herm) [d.; app.: καθίστημι ἐπιτρόπους; adm.: τρέφειν καὶ ἱματίζειν]; P.Sijp. 44.7 (c. 130, Kar) [m.; app.: ἔστω ἐπίτροπος ἀνεπιτρόπευτος καὶ ἀνεγλόγιστος]; P.Vind.Tand. 27.16 (I SokN) [m.; app.: οὖσαν ἐπίτροπον]; SB VI 9373.15-17 (II, Teb) [m.; app.: καθιστάναι ἐπίτροπον]; VIII 9642.6.12-13 (c. 133, Teb) [m.; adm.].
21. Manumission
Category: Testamentary
Twenty-two wills from the Ptolemaic through the Byzantine period—Greek and Roman wills as well as meriteia—record acts of manumission that take effect upon or after the testator’s death. Four formulations are attested. [Type1] features the verb ἀφίημι; it is well documented in both the Ptolemaic and the Roman periods (e.g., P.Oxy. III 494.5–7: 165 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἐὰν δὲ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ διαθήκῃ τελευτήσω ἐλεύθερα ἀφίημι ὑπὸ | 6 Δία Γῆν Ἥλιον κατʼ εὔνοιαν καὶ φιλοστοργίαν δοῦλά μου σώματα Ψεναμοῦνιν τὸν καὶ Ἀμμώνιον καὶ Ἑρμᾶν καὶ Ἀπολλω|7νοῦν τὴν καὶ Δημητρίαν καὶ θυγατέρα αὐτῆς Διογενίδα καὶ ἄλλην μου δούλην Δ̣[ι]ο̣γ̣ε̣ν̣ί̣[δ]α (‘If I die while this will is still in force I set free by Zeus, Ge, and Helios, due to their favourite disposition and reverence, my slaves, Psenamounis, also known as Ammonios, and Hermas, and Apollonous also known as Demetria and her daughter Diogenis and another slave of mine called Diogenis’). [Type2] invoking ἐλεύθερoς and the imperative or infinitive of εἰμί, is recorded in the Roman period only; e.g., P.Tebt. II 407.5–8 (199, Tebtynis): τὰ μ[ὲ]ν σώματα ἐλεύθερα εἶναι ὑπὸ Δία | 6 [Γῆν Ἥλιον διὰ] τ̣ὴν σ̣υν̣ο̣[ῦ]σάν μοι [πρὸς αὐ]τοὺς [σ]υ̣ν̣τροφίαν καὶ κηδεμονίαν | 7 [- ca.12 -]ν̣ καὶ Σαραπιάδα καὶ τ[ὸ ταύ]της ἔγγονον Θ[ερμ]οῦθιν καὶ Σωτηρίαν | 8 [καὶ τὰ ταύτη]ς ἔγγονα Ἰσιδώραν [καὶ Δ]ιόσκορον κ[αὶ ̣ ̣]τ̣ιον καὶ Σαραπάμμωνα (‘Let the slaves be free under the sanction of Zeus, Ge, and Helios, on account of the fellowship and solicitude existing between us, namely – – and Sarapias and her child Thermouthis and Soteria and her children Isidora and Dioskoros and – – tios and Sarapammon’). [Type3] with the verb ἐλευθεροῦν (‘to manumit’), is attested in the Roman period in both Greek and in Latin. Some documents also specify the duties of the slave after his manumission. P.Sijp. 44.2–3 (c. 130 CE, Karanis): καὶ ἐλευθεροῦν ἅμα τῇ τελευτῇ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣α̣ [τ]ὴν ὑπάρχο̣υ̣σαν αὐ[τ]ῶι παιδ̣ίσκην δούλην Ἰ̣σαροῦν, ἐφʼ ᾧ καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ̣ Ἰ̣σαροῦς παρέξεται τῇ γυναικὶ Ταμύσθᾳ τὰς διακονικὰς χρείας | 3 [ἐφ’ ὃν χρόνον Ταμύσθα περίεστιν], τ̣ὰ̣ δὲ τέλη τ̣[ῆς] ἐλευθερώσεως εἶν̣α̣ι̣ πρὸς τὴν Τα̣μύσθαν (‘… and to manumit the she-slave (whom) he owns, Isarous, upon his death; on the condition that Isarous herself will also offer her services to his wife Tamystha [as long as she lives] but the taxes for manumission are for Tamystha’). One document, P.Petr.2 I 3.8-37, ll. 19–23 (238/7 BCE, Krokodilopolis) uses, according to the editors’ restoration, the formulation καταλείπω ἐλευθέραν. These clauses usually appear in the upper section of the document, immediately following the bequeathal clause.
Bibl.: Arangio-Ruiz (1906): 100-102; Kreller (1919): 352-354, 387-388; Amelotti (1966): 143-144; Strobel (2014): 47-48, 268-282; Nowak (2015): 175-182.
BGU I 326.1.4-5, 1.18 (189, Kar) [2]; VII 1696.a7 (II, Phil); P.Bagnall 5v.4-6 (213, Ox) [2]; P.Cair.Masp. III 67312.99-104 (567, Antin) [3]; P.Col. X 267.4-5 (180-192, Ox) [1]; P.Gron. 10.4-5 (VI?, UP) [3]; P.Hamb. I 72.5-8 (II/III, UP) [3]; P.Mich. IX 549.7 (117/8, PtolEu?)?; P.Oxy. III 494.5-7 (156, Ox) [1]; XXVII 2474.28-31 (III, Ox) [2]; P.Petr.2 I 3.8-37, ll. 19-23 (238/7A, Krok) [καταλείπω ἐλευθέραν]; 3.38-63, ll. 46-49 (238/7A, Krok) [1, 2]; 3.64-95, ll. 81-82 (238/7A, Krok) [1]; 7.9-11 (238/7A, Krok?) [1]; 9.8-19, l. 18 (238/7A, Krok) [1?]; 16.95-122, ll. 105-107 (236/5A, Krok) [1]; P.Ryl. II 153.33-37 (169, Herm) [2?. ed.: ἀπε̣|[λεύθερος ἔστω]);]; P.Select. 14.3-5 (II, ArsN) [2]; P.Sijp. 44.2-3 (c. 130, Kar) [3]; P.Stras. II 122.10-12 (161-169, Euh) [2?]; P.Tebt. II 407.5-8, 18-19 (199, Teb) [2]; PSI IX 1040.15-19 (III, Ox) [3]; SB XXII 15345.3-12 (116, Teb) [2].
22. Children
Category: Testamentary
Three marriage documents from the Roman and Byzantine periods record preexisting children. In P.Cair.Masp. III 67340v.54–60 (VI CE, Antinoopolis), appears the son of the wife born in an earlier bond. In P.Mil.Vogl. II 71.14–15 (172-175 CE, Tebtynis), it is reported that the daughter has not been registered to date, and the document serves as a record of her existence: γέγονεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐξ ἀλλήλων θυγά|15[τηρ Εὐδαιμονὶς μὴ ἀνα]γεγραμμέν[η] μ̣έχ̣ρ̣ι [νῦν (‘And a daughter, Eudaimonis, who has not been registered until now, was born to them from each other’).
P.Cair.Masp. III 67340v.54-60 (VI, Antin); P.Mil.Vogl. II 71.14-15 (172-175, Teb); P.Oxy. XII 1473.8-10 (201, OxN); PSI V 450 r col. 1-27 ll. 21-22 (tres) (II, Ox).
23. ‘Hereditary’
Category: Testamentary
In contrast to the death clause (see below), which regulates the assignment of both spouses’ assets to each other and their future joint children, the hereditary clause records the detailed disposition of specific assets by the spouses or their parents. The disposition commonly takes the form of meriteia. Some texts indicate the presence of the assignor: παροῦσα ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς (‘present at the registration office’). The most commonly used verb is συγχωρέω, which may take the object in the accusative and the beneficiaries in the dative or be followed by εἶναι with the object in the accusative and the beneficiary in the genitive. In all cases, the assignment is said to be effective μετὰ τὴν τελευτήν.Most cases, especially those exhibiting the last-mentioned scheme, originate in the Arsinoite nome and date to the second half of the first century or the first half of the second century CE. Cf., e.g., BGU I 183.11–14 (85 CE, Soknopaiou Nesos): παροῦσα δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἡ τῶν γαμούντων μήτηρ Σαταβουτος (l. Σαταβοῦς) τῆς Ὥρου τοῦ Ἁρυώτου ὡς ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα πέντε | 12 [φακὸς χίλει τῷ ἄνω ἐ]ξ ἀριστερῶν μετὰ κυρίου τοῦ τῆς ἀδελφῆς αὐτῆς Τανεφρίμμιος υἱοῦ Στοτοήτιος τοῦ Ἐρίεως ὡς ἐτῶν τεσσαράκοντα ὀκτὼ οὐλὴ | 13 [ὀφρύι δεξιᾷ καὶ συν]χωροῦσα μετὰ τὴν ἑα[υτῆς] τελευτὴν τ[οῖς] ἑαυτῆς τέκνοις Στοτοήτι καὶ Ὥρωι καὶ θυγατράσι Σουήρι καὶ Ἐριέᾳ καὶ τοῖς τοῦ τετελευτηκότος | 14 [αὐτῆς ἑτέρου υ]ἱοῦ Τεσενούφιος τέκνοις Στοτοήτι καὶ Ὥρωι τῷ μὲν υἱῶι Στοτοήτι συνχωρεῖ μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτῆς τελευτὴν κτλ. (‘Present at the registration office is the mother of the partners, Satabous, daughter of Horos son of Haryotes, age approximately sixty five with a mole on the upper left lip with the son of her sister Tanephrimis, Stotoetis son of Erieus, aged approximately forty eight with a scar on the right eyebrow, and conceding after her own death to her children, Stotoetis and Horos, her daughters Soueris and Herieia, and the children of another deceased son Tesenouphis, Stotoetis and Horos etc.’)
Bibl.: Rupprecht (1987): 308-309; Yiftach (2003): 221-230.
BGU I 183.10-26 (85, SokN) [παροῦσα ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς; συνχωροῦσα μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτῆς τελευτήν]; 251.8-20 (81, SokN) [mother of the groom: παροῦσα συνχωρεῖ μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτῆς τελευτήν]; 252.10-15 (98, PtolEu) [mother of the bride: παροῦσα συνχωρεῖ μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτῆς τελευτήν]; CPR I 28.8-28 (110, PtolEu) [spouses: συνχωροῦσι ἀμφότεροι μετὰ τὴν ἑκατέρου τελευτὴν εἶναι]; 236.10-15 (81-96, SokN)?; P.Lond. II 294.33-60 (160, PtolEu) [parents of the bride: συγχωροῦσιν ἀμφότεροι οἱ γονεῖς μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν τελευτὴν εἶναι]; P.Mich. II 121r.2.2.1-7 (42, Teb) [spouses: ἐξομολογοῦμεν ἀπομεμερικέναι]; V 343.8-9 (54, Teb) [spouses: συγχωροῦσι ἀπομερίζειν]; P.Oxy. XLIX 3491.9-14 (157/8, Ox) [parents of the bride: οἱ τῆς γαμουμένης γονεῖς προσμερίζουσι]; SB XVI 12334.6-22 (IIl, Phil) [mother of the bride: συγχωρεῖ μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτῆς τελευτὴν εἶναι].
24. Death
Category: Testamentary
A clause that regulates the material consequences of death is incorporated into Ptolemaic marriage documents, some from Alexandria and from Roman Oxyrhynchos, and one Byzantine. The clause, positioned at the end of the document, is closely analogous to the bequeathal clause in contemporary wills. In the Ptolemaic P.Gen. I 21.14-15 (II CE, Unknown Provenance), it begins with the invocative formulation εἴη μὲν ὑγίεια and continues with a protasis that anticipates the event of death. In contrast to wills, which regulate the demise of a single person, in this case, two people are involved. This results in a change in the protasis from first person to third, with an indefinite pronoun followed by a genitive partitive: εἴη μὲν ὑγίεια | 15 ἐὰν δέ τις α̣ὐ̣τῶ̣ν ἀνθρώπινόν τι πάθῃ καὶ τελευτή̣σ̣[ηι]… (‘May they be in good health. But if one of them suffers a human fate and dies …’). In the proceeding apodosis, the act of bequeathal, an active measure taken by the testator in his or her will (καταλείπω), is impersonalized by the use of ἔστω, with the family estate functioning as a subject, and the bequeathees in the genitive.
The author/scribe first (1) presupposes the existence of joint children and designates them joint heirs, alongside their surviving parent, of the estate of the predeceased. They all stand in the genitive (ἔστω τὰ καταλειπόμενα ὑπάρχοντα | 16 τοῦ ζῶντος αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν τέκνων τῶν ἐσομένων αὐτοῖς ἐξ ἀ[λ]λήλων); ‘Let the property he left behind be of the surviving (parent) and of the children whom they will beget in the future from each other’). Then, (2) introduced by the genitive absolute, the clause deals with the event of death in the absence of joint children: μὴ ὄντων | 16 δʼ αὐτοῖς τέκνων ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἢ καὶ γενομένων καὶ τούτ̣ων ἀπογενομένων πρὸ τοῦ | 17 ἐν ἡλικίαι γενέσθαι ἤτοι ἀμφοτέρων περιόντων ἢ καὶ μετὰ τὴν ὁποτερουοῦν αὐτῶν | 18 τελευτήν ‘Should there be no children, or even if there are any (but) they die before reaching puberty, either when both parents are alive or after the death of one …’. Under these circumstances, the author/scribe first discusses the death of the wife (2a) with two possible scenarios: (2a1): the wife’s mother, who has provided the dowry, is still alive or (2a2) has died. The rule in both scenarios is the same: the dowry is reimbursed. The next clause deals with the husband’s failure to comply. The event (2b) of the husband’s death must have followed but the text is now lost. ἐὰν μὲν Ἀρσινόη προτέρα τι πάθῃ, ἀποδότω Μενεκράτης τὴν φερνὴν πᾶσαν | 20 Ὀλ̣υ̣μπι[ά]δι̣ τ̣ῆ̣ι̣ μ̣ητρὶ αὐτῆς, ἐὰν ζῆι, εἰ δὲ μή, τοῖς ἔγ̣γιστα γένει οὖσι αὐτῆς Ἀρσινόης | 21 [- ca.25 -] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ἐὰ̣ν δὲ μ̣ὴ ἀποδῶι, ἀποτεισάτω παραχρῆμα (‘If Arsinoe dies first, let Menekrates return the pherne in its entirety to Olympias her mother if she is still alive (and), if not, to the closest next of kin of Arsinoe herself. – – If he does not, let him pay indemnity forthwith’).
The Roman P.Oxy. III 496.10 (127 CE, Oxyrhynchos) follows the same structure. The invocative formula and the protasis discussing the event of death first presuppose the presence of joint children (1): [σ]υνφερομένων δʼ αὐτῶν εἴη μὲν ὑγεία, ἐ̣ὰ̣ν̣ δ̣[ὲ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣η̣ τ̣ι̣ν̣α̣ τῶν γαμούντω[ν τελευτῆσαι (‘When they come together, may they enjoy health; but if either husband or wife should chance to die …’). Then, however, rather than deciding the fate of his estate, the clause moves in two new directions: (1a) the right of the surviving partner (?) to his or her assets, circumscribed by the vocabulary of the ‘capacity clause’ and then the fate of the surviving partner’s estate after his or her death: ἐχέτω ὁ γα]|11[μῶν] τὴν κατὰ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἐξου[σί]αν ἃ̣ ἐὰν αἱρῆται ἐπιτελε[ῖ]ν καὶ οἷς ἐὰν βούλη[ται] μερίζε[ιν], ἐὰν δὲ μηδὲν [ἐ]πιτελέσῃ εἶναι καὶ αὐτὰ μετὰ τελευτὴν αὐτοῦ τῶν ἐξ ἀλλή[λ]ων [τ]έκνω[ν] (‘The husband shall have power over his own property to make any further provisions he pleases and to divide it among whom he will, but if he makes no further provisions the property shall after his death belong to their children’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 211).
Still under the heading of death in the presence with children, the clause discusses (1b) the issue of guardianship in the event of the husband’s death. It presupposes the appointment of guardians by the husband (1b1): ε̣ἰ̣ δὲ ἦν [ὁ] γαμῶν πρότερος [τ]ε̣τελ[ε]υτηκ[ὼ]ς ἐχέτω ἡ γαμουμένη [ -ca.?- ] | 11 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ἔ̣στω ἡ γαμουμένη κατὰ τὸ ἥ̣μ̣[ισυ] ἢ̣ ὁ̣ ἔγγιστος καὶ ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ γαμοῦντ[ος] κατασταθησόμ[ε]νος κατὰ τὸ ἕτερον ἥμισυ ἀμφότεροι ἐπίτροποι, ‹τῶν› τέ̣κ̣νων παρὰ τῇ μητρὶ διαιτ[ο]υμένων (l. διαιτωμένων) ἕως ἡλικίας γέ[ν]ωντ[αι] (‘If the husband dies first, the bride shall have … and she or her nearest relation on the one part and whomever shall be appointed by the husband on the other part shall together be guardians, the children being brought up with their mother until they come of age’). Then the clause determines the outcome of the event that the husband has not appointed guardians (1b2): the ekballein clause is used to preempt any challenge to the wife’s position as guardian: ἐὰν δὲ μηδένα ὁ γαμῶν τῆς ἡμισεί[ας ἐπιτροπῆς ἐπίτροπον καταστήσῃ ἔστω μόνη ἡ γαμουμένη ἢ] | 13 ὁ̣ [ἔ]νγιστος (l. [ἔ]γγιστος), οὐδενὶ ἐξόντ[ο]ς ἐ̣κ̣β̣ά̣[λλε]ι̣ν αὐτὴν τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς οὐδὲ μέρ[ου]ς. ‘If the husband appoints no guardian for the one part of the guardianship, the bride and her nearest of kin shall act alone and no one shall be permitted to deprive her of the guardianship nor any part of it’.
Then follows the regulation of death in the absence of joint children (2). Case 1 is the death of the wife (2a), in which the wife’s property reverts to her relatives: ἐὰν δὲ ἡ γαμουμένη προτέρα τελευτήσῃ τέκνων αὐτοῖς μὴ ὄντων ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἢ καὶ τῶν γενομένων μεταλλαξάντων ἀτέκνων ἀποδότω ὁ γαμῶν τὰ ἐ[ν φερνῇ -ca.?- ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς τετρα]|14κισχιλίας ἑκατὸν ἐν ἡμέραις ἑξ[ή]κοντα καὶ ἀναπεμπέσθω εἰς τοῦς αὐτοὺς περὶ τὴν γαμουμένην τὰ ἄλλα αὐτῆς πάντα (‘If the bride dies first without their having any children or when those children who have been born have died childless, the husband shall repay the dowry, namely … the four thousand one hundred silver drachms, within sixty days and shall send to said relations of the bride all the rest of her property’.)
The husband’s death follows (2b). The wife’s right to recover her assets is followed by the kyrieueto clause, which enables her to control the deceased husband’s estate until her assets are recovered: ἐὰν δὲ ὡσαύτως ὁ γαμῶν [π]ρ[ό]τερος τελευτήσῃ τ[έκ]νων α[ὐ]τοῖς μὴ ὄντων ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἢ καὶ τῶν γενομένων ἐπιμετα[λλαξάντων ἀτέκνων] | 15 ἀποσπάσασα τὴν δούλην Καλλιτύχην καὶ τὰ ἐσόμενα ἐξ αὐτῆς ἔκγονα, ἕως δʼ ἂν κομίσηται κυριευέτω πάντων (‘Similarly, if the husband dies first without their having any children or when those who had been born have died, leaving him childless, the bride shall … and withdraw the slave Kallityche and those children that may be born to her, and until she recovers them she shall have control over the whole property’).
The present section (2b) ends with the ekloge clause, which entitles the wife to choose between the recovery of her dotal assets in kind and their value in cash, and the praxis: ἐπὶ δὲ πασῶν τῶν διαστολῶν ἐκλογῆς οὔσης περὶ τὴν γαμουμένην ἐὰν αἱρω̣ται (l. αἱρῆται) ἔχειν τὰ προκείμενα ἐν φερνῇ χρυσία [ἄγοντα τὴν αὐτὴν ὁλκὴν ἢ τὴν ἴσην συντίμησιν] | 16 τῆς πράξεως γινομένης τῇ γαμουμένῃ καὶ τοῖς αὐτῆς ἔκ τε τοῦ γαμοῦντος καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ π[ά]ντων καθότι πρὸς ἀλλήλους συνεχώρησαν (‘and with regard to all the provisions the choice shall rest with the bride to have either, if she prefers, the aforesaid gold ornaments included in the dowry at the same weight or in their equivalent value, and the bride and her agents shall have the right of execution upon both the husband and all his property in accordance with their agreement with each other’).
The Byzantine P.Cair.Masp. I 67006v.119-130 (c. 566-570 CE, Antinoopolis ?) deals with the same circumstances in a different arrangement and with a different vocabulary: (1) death of the wife in the presence of joint children (εἰ σε̣νβ̣[αι]|119η (συμβ[αί]|η), ο̣υ̣ν̣ ̣ρατιη καὶ μὲ (l. μὴ) γένετο (l. γένοιτο), προτελευκ̣ᾶν (l. προτελευτᾶν) τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τὴ‹ν› νήμφην (l. νύμφην) πέδ[ων] (l. παίδων) | 120 με (l. μὲ‹ν(?)›) ὑπ̣ό[ν]τ̣ω̣ν̣ [ἢ καὶ] ἑ̣[νὸς παι]δ̣[ὸς ὕπο]\ν/τος̣, [ἐπὶ τῷ] τὸν ἄνδρα πρ̣ὸ τ̣ῆς | 121 [τ(?)]ε̣[λευτῆς(?)] – ca.13 -ε̣ν̣- ca.29 -) (‘If it happens, may it never be the case, that the bride dies before her husband, if there are children present, even if just one, the husband shall [ – – ] before the death (?)’), and then (2) the death of the wife without the presence of joint children: [τ]έ̣κ̣ν̣ω̣ν̣ δ̣ὲ μὴ̣ ὤντο̣ν̣ (l. ὄντων) ἢ̣ κ̣αὶ̣ ἑν̣οὺ̣ς (l. ἑνὸς) τέκνου μο̣ὶ (l. μὴ) ὄντ[ος], ἐπὶ δο (l. τῷ) τ̣ω̣ν̣ (l. τὸν) | 123 ἄ̣ν̣δ̣ρα ἀ̣π̣ο̣κ̣[ερ]τ̣ά̣ν̣α̣[ι] (l. ἀποκερδάναι) μ̣ο̣ν̣α̣ – ca.30 – [ἄ]ν̣δ̣ρα μ̣η̣ | – c. 28 -ε̣ι̣ς̣ ̣ ̣ α̣διαθετ̣ο εἰς ε̣α̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ (‘If I have no children, not even one, the husband shall be able to enjoy only – – ’). The consequences in the former case are not clear; in the latter case, the husband is allowed to recover his own assets only.
The case of the premature death of the husband follows in the same order, introduced by (l. 125) το (l. τῷ) δὲ ἴσῳ καὶ ὁμοιο (l. ὁμοίῳ) τρώπῳ (l. τρόπῳ) ἔδοξεν (l. ἔδοξεν) ὁμοίος (l. ὁμοίως)). First, in the presence of children, the wife is contractually entitled to all categories of property that she received on the occasion of the marriage: ὡς εἰ σ̣εσεμβαίη (l. συμβαίη) ὡς | 126 εἰς (l. εἰ) σ̣ε̣ν̣βαίη (l. συμβαίη) τ̣ῷ̣ [ἀνδρὶ(?)] . ̣ ̣π̣ε̣ι̣- ca.14 – πρὸ τ̣ε̣λ̣ευ̣τ̣ῇ τῆ[ς νύμ]|127φης, π̣έδω̣[ν] (l. παίδων) μὲν̣ ὑ̣π̣όντων ἢ καὶ ἑνὸς πεδὼς (l. παιδὸς) ἥ̣ποντος (l. ὕποντος), ἐπὶ το (l. τῷ) τὴν γεν[ε]κ̣α̣ (l. γυναῖκα) | 128 ἀπογ̣ερ̣τ̣ά̣νε (l. ἀποκερδάναι) ἅπαντα τὰ ἕδνα καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐπιδιδόμενα ἐν | 129 ὅ̣ρ̣[ᾳ] (l. ὥρᾳ) γ̣ά̣μων (‘If the husband happens to die before the death of his wife and there are joint children, even if only one, let the wife benefit from all the hedna and whatever was assigned to her on the occasion of marriage’). If there are no children, she will recover ‘everything that belongs to her husband’ (ἅ̣π̣α̣ν̣τ̣α̣ τ̣ὰ̣ τῷ α̣ὐ̣τ̣ῆ̣ς ἀνδρὶ οἰκεῖ[α]): τ̣έ̣κ̣λων (l. τέκνων) τε μ̣ὴ̣ ὄντ̣ων ἢ̣ καὶ ἑ̣ν̣ὸς τ̣α̣ί̣κνου (l. τέκνου) μ̣ὴ̣ ὤ̣ν̣τος̣ (l. ὄντος), | 130 ἐπὶ τῷ τὴν νύμφην ἀ̣ποκε[ρ]τάν̣αι̣ (l. ἀποκερδάναι) ἅ̣π̣α̣ν̣τ̣α̣ τ̣ὰ̣ τῷ α̣ὐ̣τ̣ῆ̣ς ἀνδρὶ οἰκεῖ[α] (‘If there are no children, not even one, the bride shall benefit from all her husband’s belongings’).
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 222-237; Montevecchi (1936): 78-81; Rupprecht (1987): 309-310; Yiftach (2003): 221-231.
BGU IV 1098.44-51 (19A-15A, Alex); P.Cair.Masp. I 67006v.119-130 (566-570, Antin?); P.Col. VIII 227.19?-30? (IIl,/IIIe, UP); P.Freib. III 26.13-16? (178A, Phil); 29.11-19 (178A, Phil); 30.6-15, 23-28 (179/8A, Phil); P.Gen. I 21.14-22 (IIA, UP); P.Ifao III 5.8-18 (II, Ox); P.Oxy. II 265.9-12, 27-32, 33-37 (81-96, Ox); 372.14 (74/5, OxΝ); III 496.10-16 (127, Ox); 497.11-18 (IIe, Ox); 606.6 (IIe, Ox); XLIX 3491.c.d (157/8, Ox); PSI V 450r.1-27, ll. 1-6 (II, Ox); SB V 7612.23-25 (II/III, Alex?); VI 8974.1.1-3.25 (IbA, Bousiris); XXIV 16072.47-68 (12A, Alex); XXVIII 16944.5 (97, UP); 17046.13 (IIe, Ox).
25. Opening the Will
Category: testamentary
A record of the opening of the will is attached to the text of Roman and Greek wills from the second and early third centuries CE. The Latin prototype records the opening and reading of the will; the office and city where the will was opened; the day, month, and consular year; and the presence of most of the witnesses who identify their seals. See, e.g., P.Diog. 10.19–22 (211 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis): apert(um) ẹt rec(itatum) Aug(usto foro) Ars(inoitu) meṭ(ropoleos) iii Noṇ[as Iunias,] | 19 Quintiano et Basso co(n)s(ulibus), anno eodem, mense Pauni die v[iiii] | 20 praes(ente) pl(urima) part(e) signat(orum) f(igentium) sig(na). L(ucius) Vạḷẹṛius Lucretianus aḍg(noui). M(arcus) L[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] | 21 nus aḍg(noui). Fl(avius) Ḍịdu⟦mianus⟧ \Diogenes/ aḍg(noui). Arrius Nigeruṣ ạdg(noui) M(arcus) Aurel(ius) Anubion. L(ucius) Ạ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] | 22 Cottarus. (‘Opened and read aloud in the forum of Augustus of the metropolis of the Arsinoite nome, three days before the Nonae of June, when Quintianus and Bassus were consuls, in the same year, on the ninth day of the month of Pauni, in the presence of the majority of the witnesses, who have attached their seals. I, Lucius Valerius Lucretianus, have recognized; I Marcus L[ – – ]nus, have recognized; I, Flavius Diogenes, have recognized; I, Arrius Nigerus, have recognized; Marcus Aurelius Anoubion. Lucius A[- -] Cottarus’). In the Greek text, the passive aorist corresponds the Roman perfect (ἠνοίγη καὶ ἀνεγνώσθη) and the text also identifies the official who supervised the opening. See, in particular, P.Oxy. XXII 2348.51–59 (224 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἠνύγη (l. ἠνοίγη) καὶ ἀνεγνώσθη | 52 ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει παρόντος Αὐρηλίου Ἁρποκρατίωνος στρατηγοῦ πρὸς τῷ | 53 λογιστηρίῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πλείονος μέρους τῶν σφραγιστῶν οἳ καὶ ἐπέγνω|54σαν καὶ ἐπεσφράγισαν τῇ πρὸ μιᾶς εἰδῶν Ὀκτωβρίαν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὑπάτοις | 55 ἔτους τετάρτου Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Μάρκου Αὐρηλίου Σεουήρου | 56 Ἀλεξάνδρου Εὐσεβοῦς Εὐτυχοῦς Σεβ̣α̣σ̣τοῦ Θὼθ ιε. οἱ λοιποὶ σφραγισταὶ | 57 Αὐρήλιος Σαρᾶς Αὐρήλιος Ἥρων ἐπέγνωσαν Αὐρήλιος Διογένης | 58 Μάρκος Αὐρήλιος Σαραπόδωρος (‘Opened and read in the same city, in the presence of Aurelius Harpokration, strategos, in his office, and the majority of the sealers who have acknowledged and given their seals, the day before the Ides of October, in the same consulate, in the fourth year of Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander Pius Felix Augustus, Thoth 15. The remaining sealers, Aurelius Saras and Aurelius Heron, have recognized. Aurelius Diogenes, Marcus Aurelius Sarapodorus.’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 141).
Bibl.: Kreller (1919): 395-406; Amelotti (1966): 183-190; Migliardi Zingale (1982): 117-123; Yiftach (2002): 149-164; Nowak (2012): 578-579; (2015): 73-102; Strobel (2014): 54-64; Colella (2018): 55-60.
BGU I 326.2.10-14, 2.21 (189, Kar) [codicillus]; VII 1655.60-71 (169, Phil); XIII 2244.11-17 (186, Alex); P.Diog. 10.19-22 (211, PtolEu); P.Hamb. I 73.19-22 (II, Phil?); P.Köln. II 100.35-40 (133, Pim[ ]); P.Laur. I 4.8-14 (246, ArsN?); P.Lund VI 6.20-23 (190/1, PtolEu); P.Oxy. VI 907.28 (276, Ox); XXII 2348.51-58 (224, Ox).
