Papyrus Bingen 45

Last updated

Papyrus Bingen 45
Berlin Papyrus Collection
Papyrus Berlin 25239.jpg
Scan of the papyrus
Also known asP.Bingen 34, Papyrus Berlin 25239 or the Cleopatra Papyrus
TypeTax exemption
DateBefore 23 February 33 BC
Place of origin Abusir el-Meleq
Language Koine Greek
MaterialPapyrus
Size24,2 x 21 x 0,02 cm; 16 lines
Accession25239

The 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 with some scholars arguing 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 ordinance of a Ptolemaic monarch. It is well known because since 2000 some historians have argued that its concluding subscription "γινέσθωι" (lit. 'so be it' or 'make it happen') is an autograph of Cleopatra, the last queen of the 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.

History

Excavation

The 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. [4] Old office papers found during the excavations stem from Alexandria and have been published in part in Berliner griechische Urkunden Volume IV (BGU IV). [5]

Publication and autograph discussion

The Papyrus Bingen 45 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. [6] 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). [7] Sarischouli did not, however, associate the document with Cleopatra [6] and interpreted the manuscript as a private contract rather than as an official ordinance. [5] [8]

The view, that the papyrus was an official ordinance ( prostagma ) [9] 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. [5] 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 [10] and on 24 October 2000 in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. [10] Today, the view that the manuscript is an official ordinance seems universal. [8]

A special exhibition of the papyrus commenced on 26 October 2000 in the Egyptian Museum of Berlin. [11] 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. [12] In 2010, the exhibition "Cleopatra: The Search for the Last Queen of Egypt" featured the papyrus again in the United States. [13]

Content of the papyrus

Description

The dimensions of the papyrus are 24.2 cm × 21 cm (9.5 in × 8.3 in) with handwriting on one side. [14] The main body of the document was written "rather carelessly in the large, straight book hand" by a court scribe. [15] The manuscript starts with the date of its receipt (year 19 [of Cleopatra's reign] [9] = year 4 [of the new era], [a] Meshir 26 [i.e. 23 February 33 BC]) – written by a different person – [15] and the name of the recipient follows, but it is not legible. The author of the document is also not named. [17]

The ordinance grants extensive relief from taxes and costs to the beneficiary, whose identity is disputed (see below). It exempts him and his heirs from all taxes related to

Text

According to the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri, [20] the papyrus can be transcribed as follows:

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

[Hand 2] [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ωι σ̣υνκεχωρήκαμ̣[εν] Π̣ο̣π̣λ̣ίωι Κανιδ̣[ίω]ι(*) καὶ τοῖς τούτου κληρονόμοις κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐξάγειν πυροῦ ἀρτάβ[ας] μυρίας καὶ εἰσάγειν οἴνου κεράμια Κ̣ῷα πεντακισχείλια(*) μηδὲν ὑπὸ [μ]η̣δενὸς π̣ρ̣ασσομένωι τέλος [μ]ηδʼ ἄλην(*) καθόλου δαπάνην· ἐπ[ικε]χωρήκαμεν δὲ καὶ ὧν ἔχει κατ̣ὰ̣ τὴν χώρ̣α̣ν̣ ἐδαφῶν πάντων ἀτ̣[έλει]α̣[ν ἐ]φ' ᾡ(*)· οὐδὲν οὔτε εἰς τὴν διοί- κησιν οὔτε εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἡμῶν κα[θ’ ὅλ]ων(*) λόγον καθʼ ὁντινοῦν τρόπον πραχθήσεται ἐπὶ τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον· ε[ἶναι](*) δὲ καὶ τοὺς γεωργοῦντας αὐτῶι πάντας ἀνεπάφους καὶ ἀτελεῖς μ[ηδ]ὲν ὑπ̣ὸ̣ μ̣η̣δενὸς πρασσομέν[ο]υς̣ μηδʼ ἐν ταῖς κατὰ καιρὸν γεινομέν[αις](*) [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(*) εἶναι· γραφήτωι(*) οὖ[ν οἷ]ς καθήκει(*), ἵνʼ εἰδότες κατακολουθῶσι·

[Hand 3 (disputed)] γινέσθωι(*)

Translation

The papyri has been translated into English multiple times, inter alia by Roger S. Bagnall and Peter Derow in 2004 [21] and by Steve Reece in 2017. [22] A German translation was provided by Eva Christina Käppel in 2021. [8]

Context and significance

The manuscript is viewed as a letter of one or multiple Ptolemaic rulers (see below) and as the last extant Ptolemaic official ordinance ( prostagma ). [9] The date of its receipt (23 February 33 BC) places it in the final years of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. It attests the deep Roman interconnection with Egypt not only within the political but also within the economic realm. [9]

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" (lit. 'so be it' or 'make it happen'), arguably written by a different person. [1] Peter van Minnen is of the view that this subscription was written by Cleopatra herself. This would be remarkable as no other autograph of a major figure from antiquity exists. [23] Van Minnen 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 this position 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 claims that there is no change of hand between the subscription ("γινέσθωι") and the main body of the text and that the subscription was therefore written 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 "γινέσθωι" 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 "γινέσθωι" 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 [c] in the imperative, which also appears one line earlier in the main body of the text (γραφήτωι). [30]

Monarch attributed as sender

There is 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 and her son Caesarion – the only biological son of Julius Caesar and co-ruler of Cleopatra in 33 BC – together are the rulers the ordinance is to be attributed to. Peter 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 to Cleopatra only and that the fact that the manuscript is written in the first-person plural should thus also refer to Cleopatra only. [32] Eva Christina 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 in a position to issue an ordinance together. [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-". [15] Peter 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. [5] [34] Duane Roller supports this reading. [35]

Klaus Zimmermann disputes this view and has identified the name "Quintus Cascellius" (Κοίντωι Κασκελίωι) in a close reading of the papyrus; a person otherwise unknown to history. [36] This view is shared by Roger S. Bagnall and Peter Derow. [28] Eva Christina Käppel also sees Quintus Cascellius (Κ̣ο̣ί̣ν̣τωι Καϲκ[ελίω]ι̣) as the beneficiary, 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. Klaus Zimmermann sees Caesarion – the only biological son of Julius Caesar and co-ruler of Cleopatra in 33 BC – 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]

Bernard Legras [39] and Peter van Minnen [40] contest this, the latter arguing that an unknown high-ranking official was the addressee. [41] Eva Christina Käppel also reject 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 letter is in dispute. Peter von 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. [5] Eva Christina Käppel disagrees arguing that the mummy cartonnage found in 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. ↑ Käppel 2021 states on page 156 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. In Bennett's The Egyptian Royal Genealogy Project it is stated 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". [16] The "4" should thus correspond with year 4 of that era. This corresponds with the view of Käppel 2021 on pages 448 and 449.
  2. ↑ This conversion into litres is disputed as Käppel 2021 points out that "coan amphoras" is an unspecified unit. [19]
  3. ↑ An extensive study of the superfluous of the 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. ↑ Reece 2017, p. 203.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 van Minnen 2000, p. 29.
  6. 1 2 Reece 2017, p. 206.
  7. ↑ Sarischouli 2000.
  8. 1 2 3 Käppel 2021, p. 157.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Käppel 2021, p. 156.
  10. 1 2 Reece 2017, p. 202.
  11. ↑ Reece 2017, pp. 201–202.
  12. ↑ Reece 2017, p. 216.
  13. ↑ Reece 2017, pp. 216–217.
  14. ↑ SMB.
  15. 1 2 3 4 Reece 2017, p. 204.
  16. ↑ Bennett 2010.
  17. ↑ Reece 2017, pp. 203–204.
  18. 1 2 van Minnen 2001, p. 79.
  19. ↑ Käppel 2021, p. 157 footnote 383.
  20. ↑ DDbDP.
  21. ↑ Bagnall & Derow 2004, pp. 109–110.
  22. ↑ Reece 2017, pp.  205–206.
  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

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.