S U R V E Y OF PAPYRI 371
the judicial order t h a n in application of its rules; b u t there are also tablets which reflect the t r u e and proper jurisdictional activity, or explicitly refer to this m a t t e r . These tablets, written with ink, belonged to the archives of L. Cominius Primus and L. Venidius Esonyclus with the exception of tablet L X X X V , graffito, the ori-gin of which remains unknown.
E . G. T u r n e r , A Writing Exercise from Oxyrhynchus (Museum Helveticum X I I I , 4 = Victoři Martin Septuagenario S. [1956] 236—238).
The author publishes a t e x t f r o m the J o h n Rylands Library, which offers new and welcome evidence in three respects. First, its regularity of execution shows t h a t the work aims at professional competence: from such well-written practice pieces it is legitimate to form an opinion of the standards expected of professional calli-graphers. Secondly, the t e x t is most reasonably interpreted as written b y an apprentice scribe a t Oxyrhynchus. Whether it was carried out in a private writing school or under official or semioffi-cial supervision in a " g o v e r n m e n t " office, it is the f i r s t evidence of the presence of apprentice scribes at Oxyrhynchus, though it has been t e m p t i n g to guess a t their presence b y extending the inference f r o m P. Oxy. 724, a contract of apprenticeship to a short-hand-writer. Thirdly, the f a c t t h a t a budding chancery scribe should practice b y copying a line of Demosthenes seems to con-f i r m in principle the absence in the ancient world ocon-f a sharp di-vision between bookhands and documentary hands.
E . G. T u r n e r , A Roman Writing Tablet from Somerset (J.R.S. X L V I [1956] 115—118).
The author points out t h a t the find in Roman Britain of a La-tin wriLa-ting tablet bearing a still legible ink inscription is of so unu-sual a n a t u r e t h a t it has seemed worthwhile to offer a provisional account of it to the readers of t h e JHS. The tablet records a sale and has a certain legal and historical interest. Those of its clauses t h a t it has proved possible to recover, follow closely the prescrip-tions of the ius civile. Perhaps this close adherence to the forms of the Roman civil law is to be seen as one of the effects of the Consti-tutio Antoniniana. I t is not possible to say, whether the sale was 2 4х
372 К. TAUBENSCHLAG
effected b y traditio or mancipatio. I n view, however, of t h e simila-r i t y of t h e f o simila-r m u l a e (e.g. t h e optimo maximoque lusimila-re-clause expsimila-res- expres-sing complete f r e e d o m f r o m servitudes, a n d t h e p h r a s i n g of t h e g u a r a n t e e clause) in t h e t a b l e t a n d the T r a n s y l v a n i a n t r i p t y c h , which is expressly s t a t e d t o h a v e been t r a n s a c t e d per mancipatio-п е т , it is perhaps w o r t h while t o call a t t e n t i o n t o t h e l a t t e r possi-bility, and to its consequences. I n his i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h e t e x t of t h e T r a n s y l v a n i a n t r i p t y c h in Negotia, p . 289, A r a n g i o - R u i z s t a t e s the now accepted view t h a t real p r o p e r t y on provincial soil could be regarded as res mancipii only if it were s i t u a t e d in t h e t e r r i t o r y of a city t h a t h a d been g r a n t e d ius Italicum, a n d t h a t it is unlikely t h a t A l b u r n u s Maior, t h e place in question, h a d received this privilege. H e concludes t h a t t h e formulae of mancipatio h a v e been wrongly used in t h a t t e x t . T h e t a b l e t would fall i n t o the sa-me case for t h e f a c t t h a t it m a y h a v e been d r a w n u p a f t e r t h e
Con-stitutio Antoniniana is n o t r e l e v a n t to the s t a t u s of provincial soil.
T h e possibilities are twofold: (1) the p r o p e r t y t o which t h e sale relates was s i t u a t e d in t h e t e r r i t o r y of a c o m m u n i t y e n j o y i n g ius
Italicum. Possibly this was n o t s i t u a t e d in B r i t a i n a t all. If it was
in B r i t a i n , could it h a v e been A q u a e Sulis or G l e u u m ? (2) The f o r m u l a e are in f a c t wrongly used. P e r h a p s t h e p u r c h a s e r was n o t sure whether t h e land in question was fundus Italicus a n d wished t o p r o t e c t himself in case it was. Or p e r h a p s b y application of t h e f o r m s of mancipatio he hoped t o assert a dominium over a res пес
mancipi a n d u s u r p a b e t t e r t i t l e to i t .
J . S c h w a r t z , Deux ostraca de la region du ivädi Hammämät (Chroń.
d'Egypte X X X I , No. 61 [1956] 118—-123).
These two ostraca of t h e R o m a n epoch concern t h e a r m y . T h e f i r s t of t h e m confirms t h e presence of t h e cohors Prima
Apameno-rum in t h e zone, where t h e ala VocantioApameno-rum a n d t h e cohors I Fla-via Cilicum equitata h a v e b e e n a t t e s t e d .
T h e second ostracon c o n f i r m s t h e presence of a c u r a t o r , a real chief of a cohort of t h e a u x i l i a r y b o d y , in t h e zone of w ä d i H a m -m ä -m ä t . T h e receiver of t h e ostracon see-ms t o live in t h e environ-m e n t of t h e curator.
G. F l o r e , Un atto di divorzio (Studi in on. P. Francisci I [1956] 395—397).
