Papyrus Bingen 45

Last updated

Papyrus Bingen 45
Berlin Papyrus Collection
Papyrus Berlin 25239.jpg
Scan of the papyrus
Also known asP.Bingen 45, Papyrus Berlin 25239 or Cleopatra Papyrus
TypeTax exemption
DateBefore 23 February 33 BC
Place of origin Abusir el-Meleq
Language Koine Greek
MaterialPapyrus
Size24.2 x 21 cm; 16 lines
Accession25239

Papyrus Bingen 45 (also known as Papyrus Berlin 25239 or the Cleopatra Papyrus) is a 1st-century BC manuscript in Koine Greek, [1] which is now part of the Berlin Papyrus Collection and displayed in the Neues Museum, Berlin. [2]

Contents

Being an official ordinance, it mainly grants certain tax exemptions for wine and wheat to a Roman citizen, whose identity is disputed; some scholars argue it is Publius Canidius Crassus, the commander of Mark Antony's land forces in the Battle of Actium (31 BC).

The papyrus is the last extant dated ordinance of a Ptolemaic monarch. It is well known because since 2000 some historians have argued that its concluding subscription "γινέσθωι" (ginésthōi; lit. 'so be it' or 'make it happen') is an autograph of Cleopatra, the last queen of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt. The papyrus would thus contain the only surviving autograph of a major figure from antiquity. [3]

There exist, however, many points of ongoing scholarly contention regarding it –including the authorship of its concluding subscription.

Description and content

Description

The manuscript is 24.2 cm × 21 cm (9.5 in × 8.3 in) with handwriting on one side. [4] The main body of it was written "rather carelessly in the large, straight book hand" of a court scribe. [5] The text starts with the date of its receipt (year 19 [of Cleopatra's reign] [6] = year 4 [of the new era], [a] Meshir 26 [i.e. 23 February 33 BC]) –written by a different person [5]  –and the name of the recipient follows, but it is not legible. The manuscript does not name its author. [8]

Content and context

Current scholarly consensus sees Papyrus Bingen 45 as a prostagma , an official ordinance of a Ptolemaic monarch. [9] [6] It grants extensive relief from taxes and costs to a beneficiary, whose identity is disputed, with some scholars identifying Publius Canidius Crassus while others read Quintus Cascellius (see below). The ordinance exempts him and his heirs from all taxes related to

The manuscript is viewed as a letter of one or multiple Ptolemaic rulers (see below) and as the last extant Ptolemaic official ordinance (prostagma). [6] The date of its receipt (23 February 33 BC) places it in the final years of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. It attests to the deep Roman interconnection with Egypt not only within the political but also within the economic realm. [6]

Text and translation

The papyrus has been translated into English multiple times, inter alia by the American scholars Roger S. Bagnall and Peter Derow in 2004 [12] and Steve Reece in 2017. [13] A German translation was provided by the German scholar Eva Christina Käppel in 2021. [9] According to the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri, [14] the papyrus can be transcribed as follows (the Leiden Conventions are used); the translation was done by Reece in 2017: [13]

[Hand 1] ἔλ(αβον) (ἔτους) ιθ δ Μεχ(εὶρ) κ̣ϛ

[Hand 2] [...]ωι σ̣υνκεχωρήκαμ̣[εν] Π̣ο̣π̣λ̣ίωι Κανιδ̣[ίω]ι [c] καὶ τοῖς τούτου κληρονόμοις κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐξάγειν πυροῦ ἀρτάβ[ας] μυρίας καὶ εἰσάγειν οἴνου κεράμια Κ̣ῷα πεντακισχείλια [d] μηδὲν ὑπὸ [μ]η̣δενὸς π̣ρ̣ασσομένωι τέλος [μ]ηδʼ ἄλην [e] καθόλου δαπάνην· ἐπ[ικε]χωρήκαμεν δὲ καὶ ὧν ἔχει κατ̣ὰ̣ τὴν χώρ̣α̣ν̣ ἐδαφῶν πάντων ἀτ̣[έλει]α̣[ν ἐ]φ' ᾡ [f] · οὐδὲν οὔτε εἰς τὴν διοίκησιν οὔτε εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἡμῶν κα[θ’ ὅλ]ων [g] λόγον καθʼ ὁντινοῦν τρόπον πραχθήσεται ἐπὶ τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον· ε[ἶναι] [h] δὲ καὶ τοὺς γεωργοῦντας αὐτῶι πάντας ἀνεπάφους καὶ ἀτελεῖς μ[ηδ]ὲν ὑπ̣ὸ̣ μ̣η̣δενὸς πρασσομέν[ο]υς̣ μηδʼ ἐν ταῖς κατὰ καιρὸν γεινομέν[αις] [i] [ἐ]πιγραφαῖς ἐν τοῖς νομοῖς συνεισ- φόρους μηδὲ λαϊκὰς ἢ στρατηγικ̣[ὰς] πρασσομένους δαπάνας· τά τε πρὸς τὴν̣ κατασπορὰν κτήνη κα[ὶ τ]ὰ̣ πρὸς τὴν τ̣ῶν πυρῶν καταγωγὴν ὑποζύγια καὶ πλοῖα κατ̣ὰ τὸν αὐτ[ὸν] τ̣ρόπον ἀνέπαφα καὶ ἀτελῆ καὶ ἀνενγ̣άρευτα [j] εἶναι· γραφήτωι [k] οὖ[ν οἷ]ς καθήκει [l] , ἵνʼ εἰδότες κατακολουθῶσι·

[Hand 3 (disputed)] γινέσθωι [m]
[Hand 1] Received year 19 = year 4, month of Mecheir, day 26

[Hand 2] To [...]. We have granted permission to [Publius Canidius Crassus] [c] and to his heirs each year to export ten thousand artabas of wheat and to import five thousand Coan amphoras of wine, being exempt from any tax from anyone and from any other cost whatsoever. We have also granted that for all the properties that he owns throughout the land [...] he shall be exempt from everything, both for the government administration and for the private account of us and [...] in any manner for all time. His agricultural workers too shall be exempt from all mandatory service and taxes levied by anyone, even from any occasional special levies in the nomes and from civilian and military expenses. His animals used for agricultural work, and his draught animals and boats used for the transport of wheat, shall in the same manner be exempt from personal service, taxes, and seizure. Let it be written to whomever it is a concern in order that they may know and obey.

[Hand 3 (disputed)] So be it.

History

Excavation

Excavations led by Rubensohn in Abusir el-Meleq in 1903 Abusir el-Meleq 1903.jpg
Excavations led by Rubensohn in Abusir el-Meleq in 1903

Papyrus Bingen 45 was found between 1903 and 1905 during excavations led by Otto Rubensohn in Abusir el-Meleq. An ancient cemetery was excavated and large quantities of mostly documentary papyri from the second half of the 1st century BC were found that had been re-used as mummy cartonnage in the 1st century AD. [15] Old office papers found during the excavations stem from Alexandria and have been published in part in Berliner griechische Urkunden Volume IV (BGU IV). [16]

Publication and autograph discussion

The papyrus was not edited or published until 2000 [1] and until then remained in storage at the Egyptian Museum of Berlin still attached to mummy casing. [17] In 2000, the Greek scholar Panagiota Sarischouli published the editio princeps of the papyrus in a Festschrift for the Belgian papyrologist Jean Bingen, thereby naming the document Papyrus Bingen 45 (or P.Bingen 45). [18] Sarischouli did not, however, associate the document with Cleopatra [17] and interpreted the manuscript as a private contract rather than an official ordinance (prostagma). [16] [9]

The view that the papyrus was an official ordinance [6] and contains an autograph by Cleopatra was put forward first in the same year by the American historian Peter van Minnen in the journal Ancient Society. [16] The fact that the papyrus arguably contains an autograph of Cleopatra was announced to the public on 22 October 2000 in the The Sunday Times [19] and on 24 October 2000 in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. [19]

A special exhibition of the papyrus commenced on 26 October 2000 in the Egyptian Museum of Berlin. [20] The papyrus was later part of the exhibition "Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth" at the Palazzo Ruspoli in Rome, at the British Museum in London and the Field Museum in Chicago. [21] In 2010, the exhibition "Cleopatra: The Search for the Last Queen of Egypt" featured the papyrus again in the United States. [22]

Points of contention

Partly due to the lacunae of the manuscript, several points of contention exist regarding it with no clear scholarly consensus:

Cleopatra autograph

Close-up of the disputed ginesthoi subscription Cleopatra signature "ginesthoi".jpg
Close-up of the disputed γινέσθωι subscription

The papyrus ends with the subscription "γινέσθωι" (ginésthōi; lit. 'so be it' or 'make it happen'), arguably written by a different person. [1] Van Minnen sees this subscription as an autograph of Cleopatra. This would be remarkable as no other autograph of a major figure from antiquity exists. [23] He argues that "[o]nly a ruler can sign a text into law. To leave that to a trusted scribe would be an open invitation to bribe that scribe." [23] Adding further, that "power must be based on an exclusive prerogative" and that "in Ptolemaic Egypt it appears to have been the prerogative of the kings to subscribe in their own hand the official documents they issued". [24]

The view that Cleopatra is the author of this subscription is shared by the American classicist Margaret M. Miles [3] and the German historian Klaus Zimmermann. [25] Duane W. Roller, the American archeologist, also supports it with the argument that countersigning documents was a known practise of monarchs of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. [26]

Antonia Sarri, a professor at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, disputes this. She sees no change of hand between the subscription (γινέσθωι) and the main body of the text; in her view the subscription was authored by the same person as the text above it. She points out that the density of the ink remains the same, suggesting that the pressure on the pen did not change, and furthermore that the personal characteristics of the handwriting do not vary between the subscription and the main body of the text. [27] The American historians Roger S. Bagnall and Peter Derow also see the authorship of Cleopatra as "less likely". [28] The French historian Bernard Legras is sceptical as well and considers a high-ranking Alexandrian official as its more likely author. [29]

In her study of the prostagma of the Ptolemaic rulers, the German scholar Eva Christina Käppel joins the view that no change of hand happened between the concluding "γινέσθωι" and the main body of the text. [30] In her view, the letters of the subscription are indeed smaller, but displaying the same idiosyncrasies as the main body of the text: a slightly angular epsilon, a left-facing serif at the bottom of the iota and a superfluous iota adscript [n] in the imperative, which also appears one line earlier in the main body of the text (γραφήτωι). [30]

Monarch attributed as sender

There is academic consensus that the official ordinance must be attributed to a Ptolemaic monarch, as they had the sole authority to grant tax relief. [31] There exists, however, dispute on whether Cleopatra alone or her together with her son Caesarion  –the only biological son of Julius Caesar and co-ruler in 33 BC –are the rulers the ordinance is to be attributed to. Van Minnen argues that Cleopatra is the only monarch attributed, focussing on the fact that the double date on top of the papyrus (year 19 = 4) refers exclusively to Cleopatra, and the use of the first-person plural should thus also refer only to her. [32] Käppel disagrees and sees the letter as attributed to Cleopatra and Caesarion together, because both were nominally co-equal rulers and should thus only be authorised together to issue ordinances. [33]

Beneficiary

The identity of the beneficiary of the extensive tax relief is also contested. Scholarly consensus holds that the beneficiary was male and one person and that his name starts with "Κα-". [5] Van Minnen argues that the well-known Publius Canidius Crassus, the commander of Mark Antony's land forces in the Battle of Actium (31 BC), was the beneficiary. [16] [34] Roller supports this reading. [35]

Zimmermann disputes this view and has identified the name Quintus Cascellius (Κοίντος Κασκέλιος, occurring in the text in the dative case as Κοίντωι Κασκελίωι) in a close reading of the papyrus; a person otherwise unknown to history. [36] This view is shared by Bagnall and Derow. [28] Käppel also sees Quintus Cascellius as the beneficiary; she identifies the form found in the text as Κ̣ο̣ί̣ν̣τωι Καϲκ[ελίω]ι̣, arguing that even though the lower curve of the sigma in the name has almost completely faded, the kappa still seems sufficiently clear to her. [37]

Addressee

A further point of contention is the addressee of the papyrus, meaning not the beneficiary of the ordinance but the person to whom the letter is nominally directed. Zimmermann sees Caesarion as its addressee. His argument for this mainly rests on his reading of lines 7 and 8 dealing with the tax accounts from which the beneficiary should be exempt. [38]

Legras [39] and van Minnen [40] contest this, the latter arguing that an unknown high-ranking official was the addressee. [41] Käppel also rejects this view, noting that the concluding imperative "γινέσθωι" seems entirely unfitting for a letter addressing a co-ruler. [42]

Place of origin

Finally, the place of origin of the manuscript is in dispute. Van Minnen has argued that many of the papyri found in Abusir el-Melek stem from Alexandria and thus sees this city as the origin of the papyrus. [16] Käppel disagrees, arguing that the mummy cartonnage found in the immediate vicinity of the papyrus in the same sarcophagus stem from Heracleopolis. She thus sees the letter not as the original from the capital Alexandria but as copy sent to an authority in Heracleopolis. [43]

References

Notes

  1. ↑ Bennett's The Egyptian Royal Genealogy Project notes that a new era began when Cleopatra was "granted rule of territories in Phoenicia, Syria, and Cilicia by Antony in late 37 or early 36 = year 16 = year 1 of a new era". [7] The "4" thus corresponds with year 4 of that era (cf. Käppel 2021 on pages 448 and 449). A different view is also voiced by Käppel 2021 on page 156, namely that the "4" corresponds with year 4 of the reign of Ptolemy XIV Philopator. This, however, seems improbable as Ptolemy XIV died in 44 BC.
  2. ↑ This conversion into litres is disputed as Käppel 2021 points out that "coan amphoras" is an unspecified unit. [11]
  3. 1 2 The editio princeps reads "Π̣ . . . ιωι Κασιώ̣[τη]ι" (a man from Kasios), van Minnen 2001, pp. 74–75 reads "Π̣ο̣π̣λ̣ίωι Κανιδ̣[ίω]ι" (Publius Canidius [Crassus]; used here), Zimmermann 2002, pp. 133–135 reads "Ḳο̣ί̣ν̣τ̣ωι Κασκ[ελίω]ι̣" (Quintus Cascellius).
  4. ↑ Usually spelled "πεντακισχίλια" (DDbDP).
  5. ↑ Usually spelled "ἄλλην" (DDbDP).
  6. ↑ The edition princeps reads "ἀ[νε]π̣[ά]φῳ", van Minnen 2001, p. 74 reads "ἀτ̣[έλει]α̣[ν ἐ]φ' ᾧ" (used here).
  7. ↑ The editio princeps reads "κα[τοίκ]ων", van Minnen 2001, p. 74 reads "κα[ὶ τέκν]ων" ("and children"), Zimmermann 2002, pp. 135–136 reads "κα[ὶ ὑ]μῶν" ("and of you [plural]"), van Minnen 2018, p. 292 reads "κα[θ᾽ ὅλ]ων" (used here).
  8. ↑ The editio princes read "ἔ[τι]", van Minnen 2001, p. 74 reads "ε[ἶναι]" (used here).
  9. ↑ Usually spelled "γινομέν[αις]" (DDbDP).
  10. ↑ Usually spelled "ἀνεγγάρευτα" (DDbDP).
  11. ↑ Usually spelled "γραφήτω" (DDbDP).
  12. ↑ The edition princeps reads "ὡ]ς καθήκει", van Minnen 2001, p. 74 reads "οἷ]ς καθήκει" (used here).
  13. ↑ The editio princeps reads "γενέσθωι", van Minnen 2001, p. 74 reads "γινέσθωι" (used here).
  14. ↑ An extensive study of the superfluous iota adscript is provided by Reece 2017.

Citations

  1. 1 2 3 Reece 2017, p. 201.
  2. ↑ BerlPap.
  3. 1 2 Miles 2011, pp. 13–14.
  4. ↑ SMB.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Reece 2017, p. 204.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Käppel 2021, p. 156.
  7. ↑ Bennett 2010.
  8. ↑ Reece 2017, pp. 203–204.
  9. 1 2 3 Käppel 2021, p. 157.
  10. 1 2 van Minnen 2001, p. 79.
  11. ↑ Käppel 2021, p. 157 footnote 383.
  12. ↑ Bagnall & Derow 2004, pp. 109–110.
  13. 1 2 Reece 2017, pp.  205–206.
  14. ↑ DDbDP.
  15. ↑ Reece 2017, p. 203.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 van Minnen 2000, p. 29.
  17. 1 2 Reece 2017, p. 206.
  18. ↑ Sarischouli 2000.
  19. 1 2 Reece 2017, p. 202.
  20. ↑ Reece 2017, pp. 201–202.
  21. ↑ Reece 2017, p. 216.
  22. ↑ Reece 2017, pp. 216–217.
  23. 1 2 van Minnen 2000, p. 31.
  24. ↑ van Minnen 2001, p. 78.
  25. ↑ Zimmermann 2002, p. 139.
  26. ↑ Roller 2010, p. 134.
  27. ↑ Sarri 2018, p. 168 footnote 593.
  28. 1 2 Bagnall & Derow 2004, p. 110.
  29. ↑ Legras 2013, p. 161.
  30. 1 2 Käppel 2021, p. 388.
  31. ↑ Käppel 2021, p. 446.
  32. ↑ van Minnen 2000, p. 33 note 1.
  33. ↑ Käppel 2021, pp. 449–450.
  34. ↑ van Minnen 2001, p. 75.
  35. ↑ Roller 2010, pp. 133–134.
  36. ↑ Zimmermann 2002, pp. 133–135.
  37. ↑ Käppel 2021, p. 158.
  38. ↑ Zimmermann 2002, pp. 135–138.
  39. ↑ Legras 2013, p. 161.
  40. ↑ van Minnen 2018, p. 292.
  41. ↑ van Minnen 2001, p. 76.
  42. ↑ Käppel 2021, pp. 156, 446.
  43. ↑ Käppel 2021, p. 385.

Sources

  • Bagnall, Roger S.; Derow, Peter (2004). "Number 63". In Bagnall, Roger S.; Derow, Peter (eds.). The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation. Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History. pp. 109–110. doi:10.1002/9780470752760. ISBN   978-1-4051-0132-5.
  • Bennett, Chris (2010). "Cleopatra VII". The Egyptian Royal Genealogy Project .
  • Käppel, Eva Christina (2021). Die Prostagmata der Ptolemäer[The Prostamata of the Ptolemies]. Papyrologica Coloniensia (in German). Vol. XLV. Schöningh. doi:10.30965/9783657760695. ISBN   978-3-657-76069-5.
  • Legras, Bernard (2013). "Autour du papyrus dit de Cléopâtre: les prostagmata lagides et les interactions romano-égyptiennes" [On the so-called Cleopatra Papyrus: Ptolemaic prostagmata and Roman-Egyptian interactions]. In Bussi, Silvia (ed.). Egito: Dai Faraoni agli Arabi[Egypt: From the Pharaohs to the Arabs] (in French). Pisa and Rome: Fabrizio Serra. pp. 159–172.
  • Miles, Margaret Melanie (2011). "Cleopatra in Egypt, Europe, and New York: An Introduction". In Miles, Margaret Melanie (ed.). Cleopatra: A Sphinx Revisited. University of California Press. pp. 1–20. ISBN   978-0-520-24367-5. JSTOR   10.1525/j.ctt1pnvmm.
  • van Minnen, Peter (2000). "An Official Act of Cleopatra (with a subscription in her own hand)". Ancient Society. 30: 29–34. doi:10.2143/AS.30.0.565556. JSTOR   44079804.
  • van Minnen, Peter (2001). "Further thoughts on the Cleopatra Papyrus". Archiv für Papyrusforschung. 47 (1): 74–80. doi:10.1515/apf.2001.47.1.74.
  • van Minnen, Peter (2018). "P.Bingen 45 Revisited". Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists. 55: 292–293. JSTOR   44972250.
  • Reece, Steve (2017). "Cleopatra Couldn't Spell (And Neither Can We!)". In Groton, Anne H. (ed.). Ab Omni Parte Beatus: Classical Essays in Honor of James M. May. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. pp. 201–220. ISBN   9780865168435.
  • Roller, Duane W. (2010). Cleopatra: A Biography. Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199752584.
  • Sarischouli, Panagiota (2000). "Spätptolemäische Urkunden: ΣΥΓΧΩΡΗΣΙΣ-Vertrag und Eide". In De Smet, Rudolf; Melaerts, Henri; Saerens, Cecilia (eds.). Papyri in honorem Johannis Bingen ostogenerarii (P.Bingen) (in German). Peeters. pp. 213–228. ISBN   904290867X.
  • Sarri, Antonia (2018). Material Aspects of Letter Writing in the Graeco-Roman World: 500 BC – AD 300. Materiale Textkulturen. Vol. 12. doi: 10.1515/9783110426953 . ISBN   9783110426953.
  • Zimmermann, Klaus (2002). "P.Bingen 45: Eine Steuerbefreiung für Q. Cascellius, adressiert an Kaisarion" [P.Bingen 45: A tax exemption for Q. Cascellius, addressed to Caesarion]. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (in German). 138: 133–139. JSTOR   20191378.
  • "Königlicher Erlass". Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (in German).
  • "P. 25239: Königlicher Erlaß". Berlin Papyrus Database.
  • "p.bingen.45 = HGV P.Bingen 45 = Trismegistos 78025". Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.