T H E VOICE O F AUTHORITY PAPYRUS

LEIDEN I 382"
By J. D. RAY

Papyrus Leiden I 382 is a demotic administrative letter, probably from the beginning of the Ptolemaic
Period. T h e writer of the letter is clearly a person of importance, who loses no time in reprimanding a temple
scribe over a series of matters which have gone amiss. Its intrinsic interest, and the idiomatic language it
contains, justify separate publication.

I N 1863 Conrad Leemans published his remarkable fascicle on some of the the demotic
papyri in Leiden: Papyrus e'gyptiens de'motiques I . 373-382 du Muse'e d'Antiquite's des
Pays-bas a Leide. T h e papyri which feature in this publication are all contracts, with the
exception of the final one, an administrative letter which bears the number I 382, and
which can be seen in a very clear facsimile on the plate.' In spite of this excellent copy, the
letter seems to have gone unnoticed in the literature, with the exception of a rather
impressionistic translation by Revillout made in 1888.* However, the text deserves to be
better known, both in its own right and because of the idiomatic language it contains. It
is edited here with the minimum of notes, and with a translation which is freer than usual,
in an attempt to bring out the tone of the original.
T h e papyrus measures some 37.0 by 5.2 cm (pl. XXIV, 1-2). There is no record of
provenance, but internal evidence suggests that the letter comes from the neighbourhood
of Thebes. T h e text comprises 27 lines of demotic, written in a small, neat hand parallel
to the fibres. T h e hand has a tendency to slope upwards towards the left. At the top of the
reverse side is the address, comprising two lines which are upside-down with respect to
each other. These appear above and below a space which was intended for a seal. No trace
of this survives, although it is clear that the letter was originally rolled. T h e papyrus takes
the form of a long vertical strip, and is narrower than is usually the case with letters. This
means that the individual lines of the recto are distinctly short. There is a margin of some
2.0 or 2.5 cm at the top of the recto, and a larger space of 5.5 cm at the end. T h e text is
well preserved, apart from slight damage to the ends of some of the lines in the middle of
the recto.

Text

Recto

1. i.ir.hr Pa-r_t pI sh ht-ntr

2 . hb.w n.i r-dbl" PI-wr-diw pl [h]r
3. dd SmJ n.f irm nIy.f hbs.w
* I am extremely grateful to Hans Schneider, former Director of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, and to
his colleague Maarten Raven, who gave permission to publish this edition of the papyrus, as well as supplying
the photographs which appear o n plate XXIV.
' In the complete publication to which the fascicle belongs, see C. Leemans, Monumens egyptiens du Musee
d'Antiquites des Pays-bas a Leide, 11' Partie: monuments civiles (Leiden, 1846), 83, pl. ccxiv.
E. Revillout, ' U n e deposition', RevEg. 6.1 (1888), 5 .
190 J. D. RAY J E A 85

4. r qdt 6b bn-iw rh pl sh ht-ntr

5. mh_t dr_t(.i)" n mdt bn-pw.i dit (?)
6. iw .f r-bl irm.kd ntk
7 . i.ir _tly,t.f ( n ) g(n)s hr (?)
8. hlty .f m-sl hpr iw .f (sic)"
9. gm_t.f iw.i dit mh.w n-im.ff
10. iw.i dit di f n l nkt.w gr
11. iw.i dit gm.k-s ( n ) pl dth
12. m y hn.w-s r hb n.i (?)
13. pl wlh n l mdt.w r.hb.i i.ir.hr
14. pl sh ht-ntr n-im.w ( n ) 'rd
15. t l mdt nty sh r PI-di-'lmn sl H r
16. p3 rmt Pl-iw-rk r.hb.i
17. i.ir.hr.k r-dbl_t.f " irm nl mdt.w
18. nty sh r PI-iw-Hr sl PI-di-'lmn-nsw-tlwy
19. pl '-n-prh nty n-drt Dhwty-m-hb (?)'
20. sl Pa-nl pl fy-tbr (?)-'
21. rmt Niwt i.ir pl it (?) tn '/4
22. pl it (?) PI-dbl (?)k 's-m(y)'
23. t l mdt nty sh r Pl-di-Hr-pl-Rr
24. thlrm hb i.ir.hr
25. pl sh ht-ntr n-im.s sh
26. Pl-hb sl PI-di-Hr-pl-Rr n hlt-sp 1 6
27. lbd-4 prt sw 27

Verso

1. i.ir.hr (space) Pa-r_t

2. (upside d o w n ) sl H r pl sh ht-ntr

Notes to the text

(a) Although the writing of this text is clearly professional, it shows some of the cursiveness which
can accompany practised hands. Here the context as a whole helps to determine the meaning; in
addition there is some resemblance between the present group and the even more cursive one
which appears in line 17. T h e latter example is followed by a suffix. T h e reading seems
unavoidable, in spite of the absence of initial r in both examples.
(b) This group is clear but difficult. T h e final element seems to be the numeral 6, which
suggests either a total or a valuation of some sort. T h e reading dmd is a possibility, although
Ptolemaic examples of this word are normally more complex.3 '4 slightly better reading would
appear to be qdt (DG 552). A similar writing appears in P. Hauswaldt 18.+
(c) T h e final radical is clearly written, both in this word, where it implies an unwritten suffix
(cf. Coptic T O O T , where the suffix effectively disappears), and in the preceding word mhi. In the
latter case the writing probably corresponds to Coptic AMAZTC (cf. DG 1 7 2 ) . A form without final

Cf. \V. Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar [DG](Copenhagen, 1954), 634.

'See J. G. hlanning, The Hauswaldt Papyvi (Demotische Studien 12; Sommerhausen, 1997), 140-9.
1999 T H E VOICE O F AUTHORITY PAPYRUS LEIDEN I 382 191

t appears in line 9, but the meaning appears to be the same in both cases. For this variation cf. the
Fayyumic M€21, which takes the place of A M A 2 T e in this dialect (Crum, CD, 9a). T h e form
A M A 2 T E is anomalous, and it is probably right to see it as an original imperative followed by an old
reflexive pronoun.'
(d) T h e writing of this group is again cursive. At first sight it resembles i.ir.hr, although it is not
quite the same as the form which appears in line 1 of the recto, as well as upon the verso. In line 17
both this preposition and the word irm appear, and this makes it likely that the latter is what was
intended here.
(e) T h e text as written is somewhat rushed, but the natural reading would seem to be i w f .
However, this makes poor sense: the runaway lad is unlikely to be finding himself. A better reading
might be iw.i, giving the meaning 'but if I find him'. T h i s may even be what the scribe intended to
write, with the final diagonal stroke doing duty for the first person suffix.
(f) T h e final group in this line is indistinct. T h e reading mh.w seems clear, but the following
group might correspond to the object suffix -!$, or it might be the prepositional n-im.f. T h e first
possibility is made unlikely by the combination gm.k-s which is found clearly written in line 11 of
the text, and which shows the use of the old dependent pronoun. For this and other reasons the
second possibility seems preferable. For the preposition n-im following mh see DG 172, which also
lists the form mh as the equivalent of mh!,'seize'. See also note (c) above.
(g) T h e group here read di$ is somewhat cramped, and the suffix in particular is wedged into
the space of the line, but it is difficult to suggest an alternative reading.6
(h) T h e reading seems inescapable, the alternative being far less likely. T h e word is not listed in
DG, but it has been noticed by the Chicago Demotic Dictionary, where it is attested in a series of
ostraca. It may also occur in P. Cairo 50058, line 6, which contains a reference to pl mw n p l '-n-pr.
T h e editor, Spiegelberg, translated this as 'das Wasser des Kanals'.' T h i s is probably what lies
behind the entry in DG 51, with its reference to a word ' meaning 'watercourse'. T h i s seems
unnecessary. I n each case we are probably dealing with the same word, '-n-pr, corresponding to
Middle Egyptian imy-r pr, 'major domo, steward'.
(i) T h e context clearly demands a proper name at this point, and the initial element Dhwty
seems certain. T h e following element, however, is difficult. I have taken it as a writing of -m-hb
rather than the alternative -iw, following the lines laid down by W. C l a r y s ~ e A . ~ third possibility,
Dhwty-i.ir-dit-s, is less likely.
(j)T h e group written here corresponds to a title or epithet, and the initial element fy is easily
read. However, it is the following group which presents the difficulty. I t looks like a form of the
hieratic sign for a seal, and in fact it bears a good resemblance to the fourth example given by E.
Bresciani in her discussion of the title my-htm in a Karnak o s t r a ~ o n A . ~seal it would seem to be,
and the reading htm is therefore possible, although an equally likely candidate would be tbc, which
has the advantage of surviving into Coptic. Fortunately the meaning is unaffected by this choice.
T h e relationship of the title fy-tbr or fy htm to the my-htm which appears in the Karnak ostracon is
not certain. T h e latter clearly belongs to someone of importance, and the natural assumption
would be that the fy-tbc was a subordinate, but it may just be that the two titles are synonymous.
' J. Cernj: Coptic Etymological Dictionary (Cambridge, 1976), 7.
'For the Coptic equivalent TTO=, see Crum, C D 4396, and K . H. Sethe, Das koptische Kausativ von
"geben" (NGWG; Gottingen, 1919), 139-44.
' D i e demotischen Denkmiiler, 111. Demotische Inschriften und Papyri (CG; Berlin, 1932), 41, although his
transliteration implies something different.
'Noms demotiques en - iw, - m-hb et i.ir.dj-s', Enchoria 15 (1987), 11-24.
'Registrazione cadastrale e ideologia politica nell'Egitto tolemaico', EVO 6 (1983), 15-31 : see p. 19. The
other examples given in her list, however, are very different, and probably correspond to a group discussed by
W. J. Tait, Papyri from Tebtunis in Egyptian and in Greek (EES Texts from Excavations 3; London, 1977),
30-2, for which J. Yoyotte, 'Le nom kgyptien du ((Ministrede l'Economie>+de Says a MCroe', C R A I B L 1989,
73-88, has proposed the very attractive reading snnty.
192 J. D. RAY J E A 85

(k) There are several palaeographical problems in lines 21-2, which may as well be dealt with in
one note. T h e first two words are clear, but the first problem arises with the group which follows
the article p l . It resembles a medial aleph-type sign followed by a curving diagonal (1%). T h i s is
repeated at the beginning of the next line. It is not the same as iw, 'island', which appears in
P3-iw-rk (line 16), nor can it be the word for 'dog' which is seen in the name PI-iw-Hr (line 18).
T h e remaining possibilities appear to be Ih, 'land', or it, 'grain'. T h e first yields good sense,
especially in the repeated instance; however, this word is normally written with a vertical final
stroke ( D G 9). T h e reading it would therefore seem to be the better one. T h e group which follows
this at first sight resembles m.f, but m is, to my knowledge, invariably written with a determina-
tive. It is therefore preferable to read the first sign as a distributive, tn, followed by a fraction,
which seems to be '/4. T h e word which follows the repeated it (?) in line 22 begins with a definite
article, and could well be a proper name. T h e reading PI-(di)-Ttm is not convincing, and a more
likely candidate is the name Pl-db3, which is well known from Theban contexts.1° It has to be
admitted that the group here read dbl is different from the one which is used in the preposition
r-dbl discussed in note (a) above. Such variants do occur in demotic. However, most, if not all, of
these readings remain tentative.
(1) T h i s group is something of an oddity. T h e first part of the word is clearly the deictic particle
s' (Coptic elc).T h i s can sometimes be followed by the element my, meaning something like 'lo
and behold' ( D G 70). It may be an abbreviated writing of this which is meant here. A parallel can
be found in the administrative letter from the Serapeum BM EA 10231, line 14." T h e word
appears to have a co-ordinating function as well as the usual emphasis ('and in particular'). T h i s
fits the present context well.
(m) T h e opening word of the line is partly obscured, but, on close inspection, the first two signs
appear to have overlapped, and the writing seems to resolve itself as thIr. This is unattested, but it
could be a formation from the common root th (older dhr), 'be bitter' ( D G 653). T h e word seems to
function as an adjective predicate here, which is also strange. It may be an abstract, corresponding
to a supposed form * T ~ H Pfrom an earlier *dahzira.t, 'bitterness' (cf. Wb. V 483). Alternatively, it
may be an old imperfective sdm. f from an adjective verb; but this is uncertain, as is the translation.

Translation

Recto

1. 'For the attention of Paret the temple scribe.

2. I have received a letter concerning the boy Portiou,
3. saying that he has absconded with his clothing,
4. to the value of 6 qite." T h e temple scribe will not be able to
5. justify himself to meb in any way." I did not
6. send him out with you. It is you
7. who have wronged him, in (?)
8. his heart (?).d But if I (?)'
9. find him I shall have him seized

''For this name, m-hich can be either personal or divine, see A. Volten, 'Agyptische Nemesis-Gedanken',
Miscellanea,,Gregoriana (Rome, 1941), 371-9, while for the theology involved see H. Bonnet, U R G , 588 with
'Petbe', LA IV, 992-3, and J. Quaegebeur, L e dieu igyptien Shai'dans la religion et l'onomastique ( O L A 2;
Leuven, 1975), 172. A possible instance of the personal name occurs in Demot. iVb. I , 547, though there may
well be other examples to record.
" E. Revillout, Corpus Papjlvorztnr (Paris, 1885-92), 1111, pl. iii, right.
1999 T H E VOICE O F AUTHORITY PAPYRUS LEIDEN I 382

10. a n d m a k e h i m r e t u r n t h e things, o r else

11. I shall make s u r e t h a t you joinf h i m i n prison.
12. Arrange t o b e s e n t t o m e
13. t h e reply t o t h e m a t t e r s a b o u t which
14. I wrote t o t h e temple scribe, as a m a t t e r of urgency:
15. t h e charge againstg P e t a m u n s o n of H o r ,
1 6 . t h e m a n of ~ h i l a e a, b~o u t w h o m
17. I wrote t o you, a n d t h e charges
18. against P i n h o r s o n of Petemenestou,
19. t h e steward' w h o is employed by T h o t e m h e b J
20. s o n of P a n a t h e seal-beareqk
21. a T h e b a n , w h o divided t h e grain (?) into quarters,
22. t h e grain (?) of petbe,' a n d above all
23. t h e charge against Petiharpre.
24. I t is irksome " t o b e writing t o
25. t h e temple scribe a b o u t this. Written b y
26. P h i b s o n of Petiharpre in Year 1 6 ,
27. P h a r m o u t h i , day 27.'

Verso

1. ' F o r t h e attention of (space) Paret

2. (upside down) s o n of H o r , t h e temple scribe.'

Notes to the translation

(a) For the reading, and a possible alternative, see note (b) to the text above. If this reading is
correct, the value of the boy's clothes would have been 6 silver qite, which in the middle of the
Ptolemaic Period would correspond to twelve drachmae. Whether this is so in the present context
is difficult to say, since the text may well be earlier.
(b) I cannot find an exact parallel for the phrase mhi drt,'seize (?)the hand', but it is not difficult
to suspect that the general meaning is close to the well attested fp drt, which means 'guarantee'.
T h e context would appear to demand a phrase meaning something like 'justify' or 'give a
convincing account of'. Such a force might have arisen from an expression which literally meant
'seize the hand' (as a gesture of friendship or making amends), and this explanation has been
followed here.
(c) T h e phrase n mdt is clear in the text, and its force seems to be emphatic, following a negative
expression. T h e word mdt does not survive into Coptic in its absolute form, but only in the
reduced one (MET-, MNT-) which is used to create abstracts. However, if md(w)t is a nomen
actionis from the root mdw, its original vocalisation would have been something like *midu-a.t.
This would have passed into Coptic as MAT€, and it is worth wondering whether the phrase lz mdt
is not the ancestor of Coptic MMATB or €MAT€, 'very'. This is normally derived from some form
of mlr or mlrt, but phonetically this is difficult to accept. Vycichl suggests a link with mtr or
mtry,I2 but the suggestion offered here is simpler. It is always possible that two or more different
etymologies have merged in Coptic.

l2 \V. Vyc~chl,Dzct~onnuirePtymologique de lu langue copte (Leuven, 1983), 43

194 J. D. RAY J E A 85

(d) T h i s translation seems to follow from the reading hr (?) h1ty.f which was adopted above.
However, it introduces a note of sensitivity to the passage which seems at variance with the
insensitivity of the rest of the letter. Perhaps we should read hr hIi.j instead, with the meaning
'before (?) him' (cf. 2A2THq). But this too raises difficulties.
(e) For this choice of reading see note (e) to the text above.
(f) T h e literal translation would be 'that you find him', but it is likely that something more
permanent was envisaged by the writer. There is clearly a threat contained within the words used.
(g) T h e literal meaning of tl mdt nty sh r would appear to be something like 'the matter which
strikes against', or perhaps 'which is detrimental to'.I3 This is capable of being understood in a
variety of ways, and it is therefore preferable to translate with a general phrase: the people in
question are obviously in some kind of legal or administrative trouble.
(h) T h e reading is clear, but the phrase 'man of Philae' remains enigmatic. T h e title is not
uncommon in Ptolemaic texts, and it clearly implied some form of status, real or possibly notional.
Leaving aside the idea that the inhabitants of Philae were ethnically distinct from the rest of
Nubia, we can say that the two principal characteristics of Philae at this period were that it was an
island, and that it contained the celebrated temple of Isis. T h e men of Philae may have been
boatmen, organised into a guild or something of the kind, in which case the term would be a
professional one. Unfortunately, direct evidence for this idea is lacking. However, another feature
of the Philae temple was that it levied tithes on pilgrims and visitors. Natives of Philae may have
been exempt from paying such a tithe, and the epithet might have been used to indicate such
exemption, either in Philae itself or, by extension, in other temples. However, there is at present no
proof of this. In the context of our letter the phrase may be nothing more than geographic, as
presumably is the use of the similar rmt Niwt in line 21.
(i) For the translation see note (h) to the text above.
(j) For this name see the discussion in textual note (i). T h e alternative Thoteu is less likely, but
not entirely out of the question.
(k) T h i s title is discussed in textual note (j) above.
(1) T h e various palaeographical problems of lines 21-2 are discussed in note (k) to the text
above. T h e translation offered here is far from being certain. T h e name Petbe is probably
personal, though it might refer to the god of the same name, who could be taken to be the owner
of the grain via the authorities of his temple. However, in such a case one would expect an epithet
such as pl ntr ' I to follow the name.
(m) T h i s word, which is not certain, is discussed in note (m) to the text. T h e general meaning is
clear, whatever the exact reading.

Commentary
Papyrus Leiden I 382 is a straightforward administrative letter, of a type which must
often have been penned in Hellenistic Egypt. However, what distinguishes it is the
authoritative tone of the writer, which at times verges on the peremptory. It is addressed
to a temple scribe, Paret, whose full name is given in the address on the verso as Paret son
of Hor. This unfortunate is addressed throughout, either by means of his title (lines 4,
14, 25), or by the use of the second person pronoun. T h e incident which set off this
angry tirade is described in lines 2-6. A boy (or more likely a servant) named Portiou has
run away, taking his clothing, which the text takes the trouble to value at 6 silver qite. T h e
writer clearly regards the temple scribe as responsible for this in some way (lines 6-8).

l3 Cf. CWY (I), Vycichl, Dictionnaire, 203.

1999 T H E VOICE O F AUTHORITY PAPYRUS LEIDEN I 382

T h e boy is to be recaptured, and must return the clothing; if not, the recipient of the
letter will be joining the lad in prison (lines 8-1 1).
T h i s state of affairs is bad enough, but it prompts the writer to remember other things.
There is a series of matters which have gone unattended, and it is clear that the writer is
still waiting for replies to some of his previous letters. There are charges of some sort
outstanding against a number of individuals, and the writer needs to know the outcome
urgently (lines 12-14). There is the case of Petamun son of Hor, an inhabitant of Philae,
which is clearly important, but about which no details are given. T h e n there is the case of
Pinhor, a steward who is in the employment of one Thotemheb son of Pana, a seal-bearer.
T h e steward, who is said to be a Theban, has done something irregular, apparently in
connection with a quantity of grain (lines 17-22). Finally, there is the matter of a man
named Petiharpre. T h e writer adds that it is particularly annoying to be having to write
about this, although this note of exasperation may well apply to the whole of the letter
rather than just the final example.
T h e writer then signs himself as Phib son of Petiharpre. H e gives no further detail, but
it obvious that the recipient of the letter, Paret the temple scribe, will know who he is. A
temple scribe was not a nobody, but the writer must have been superior even to this. H e is
clearly a man of authority. Unfortunately the names in question are quite common, but in
view of the likelihood that our writer was a man of rank, a candidate may be found in
Phibis son of Peteharpres,14 who is active in several documents from the reign of Soter I.
One of these, P. Philadelphia Reich 2, shows him as a witness as early as 315.'\Another,
P. Philadelphia Reich 10, dates from the following reign, and describes his house as being
already in the possession of his children on 1 March 282.16 By this time, he would have
been extremely elderly, if not dead, and we can therefore date his active career to the reign
of Ptolemy Soter. In that case, the present letter would also date to the reign of Soter, and
we would be justified in assigning it to 27 June 289 BC. This fits the palaeography of our
hand well enough.
P. Leiden I 382 is an interesting addition to our corpus of demotic letters, partly
because of its tone, partly because of the high rank of its narrator. It would, of course, be
even more interesting if we had the reply or replies of the unfortunate temple scribe,
Paret. These may be lurking in another collection, but it is more likely that they have not
come down to us. As often in demotic studies, we must be content with what we have.

" W. Peremans and E. van 't Dack, Prosopographiaptolemaica (Louvain, 1950-), 111 7825 and I X 7825. He
is there said to be a scribe of the nome of Thebes (sh tS n Niwt).
I 5 S. R. K. Glanville, Catalogue of Demotic Ppapyri in the British Museum, I : A Theban Archire of the
Reign of Ptolemy I , Soter (London, 1939), 50, and 6 1 , index, 943 i.
l 6 M. El-Amir, A Family Archive from Thebes (Cairo, 1959), 45-9.
PLATEXXIV

1. Papyrus Leiden I 382: verso (Courtesy of the

Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden)

1. Papyrus Leiden I 382: recto

(Coutesy of the Rijksmuseum
van Oudheden, Leiden)

PAPYRUS LEIDEN I 382 (pp. 189-95)