574 JOURNAL OF JURISTIC PAPYROLOGY
latives seems possible only w h e n there are no direct d e s c e n d a n t s and no consort of t h e t e s t a t o r . I n f a c t in the t e s t a m e n t neither t h e wife nor t h e children of t h e t e s t a t o r are mentioned. T h e y cer-t a i n l y do n o cer-t exiscer-t. I cer-t is n o cer-t clear f r o m cer-t h e cer-t e s cer-t a m e n cer-t w h y cer-t h e cer- te-s t a t o r ' te-s te-site-ster wate-s n o t t a k e n into conte-sideration. A te-site-ster h a d evi-d e n t l y no right t o succession contra tabulas. P e r h a p s she was con-sidered to be satisfied w h a t o f t e n was t h e case w i t h t h e establishment of her dowry.
There follows t h e e n u m e r a t i o n of t h e t e s t a t o r ' s debts which a f t e r his d e a t h t h e heirs i.e. his two b r o t h e r s are responsible f o r ( v . 29—35). A f t e r this follows t h e clause (v. 35) t h a t n o b o d y has t h e right t o contest t h e t e s t a m e n t . I t is r e m a r k a b l e t h a t not all t h e possible grades of relati'onship are mentioned, b u t only the circle of those persons who are t a k e n into consideration, are indi-cated in general t e r m s .
The t e x t В comprises p a r t s of three documents. The f i r s t t w o are delivery contracts. The price is n o t mentioned here like in m a n y other documents of this t y p e . The drawer c o n f i r m s only t h a t he h a d duly received it. Only t h e beginning of t h e t h i r d d o c u m e n t mentioning t h e p a r t n e r s of t h e contract has been preserved.
I n all these t e x t s t h e particular points are t h a t t h e y w e e par-tially written f i r s t in Greek and then in Coptic; t h a t t h e y were n o t a t t e s t e d b y t h e drawer neither b y the witnesses nor b y the scribe of t h e d o c u m e n t ; t h a t all these t e x t s were w r i t t e n b y t h e same h a n d at a s t r e t c h a n d w i t h o u t b r e a k s in spite of t h e drawer and t h e receiver of t h e d o c u m e n t being different persons in t h e single d o c u m e n t s . All these details point to t h e d o c u m e n t s n o t being real ones b u t only f o r m s w r i t t e n on t h e reverse of a worn-out t e s t a m e n t which should serve for a n o t a r y as a model when writing real do-cuments. B o t h t h e d o c u m e n t s are provided with a p e n a l t y clause in t h e event, the delivery should n o t be m a d e in d u e t i m e and se-cured b y a h y p o t h e c omnium bonorum.
Ε . S t e f a ń s k i — M. L i c h t h e i m , Coptic Ostraca from Medinet Habu. T h e University of Chicago, Oriental I n s t i t u t e Publications vol. L X X I , Chicago U n i v e r s i t y Press 1952 (cf. A. S t e i n -w e n t e r , Sav. Z. L X X I , 497 ff.).
F o r the c o n t i n u a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e Greek a n d t h e E g y p t i a n do-c u m e n t s t h e O. 82 m a y be referred to. I did n o t see i t . I k n o w t h i s
SURVEY OF PAPYRI 1953—1955 575
edition only f r o m S t e i n w e n t e r ' s c o m m e n t a r y I.e. Out of t h e rieh contents of t h e collection n o t e w o r t h y is a sea f r i g h t agreement in which t h e freighter promises his p a r t n e r to bring himself and his σκεύη μετά καλοϋ χωρίς θεοϋ βίας t o Antinoupolis (cf. m y Law2
383).
У. M a r t i n , Letter of Recommandation for three Monks (JEA 40 [1954] 74—75).
Neither t h e i d e n t i t y nor t h e s t a t u s of the sender a n d the reci-pient can be fully ascertained. There is no positive a r g u m e n t for N i c o l e ' s view t h a t J o h a n n e s was an official of t h e cursus publicus. On γραμματηφόρος in v . 2 cf. m y Law2 683.
H . Z i l l i a c u s , The Stolen Anchor (ts.tr. f r o m Arctos, Acta Philologica Fennica Nova series vol. I [1954] 199—208).
T h e complaint in this Bodleian d o c u m e n t catalogued as Ms. Gr. Class, c. 42 (P.) is w r i t t í n b y a certain Timotheus acting on be-half of t h e corporation of monks or t h e m o n a s t e r y in A n k y r o n po-lis; he himself being a m m b e r of t h e corporation. T h e subject of the complaint is robberies m a d e b y some soldiers a n d t h e request is w r i t t e n t o a certain Heron, addressed as πάτρων. This m a y a t f i r s t h a n d suggest t h e land-lord of a large estate in which the mo-n a s t e r y was situated amo-nd who guaramo-nteed the m o mo-n k s his protectiomo-n.
T h e complaint concerns two robberies, possibly connected one w i t h a n o t h e r . T h e f i r s t p a r t of the letter (1. Ί — 1 7 ) tells about t h e soldier Paulus having stolen t h e anchor f r o m t h e brothers. H e obviously did it as reprisals for an unsettled debt of t h e deacon H o r u s (acting on behalf·of the m o n a s t e r y ? ) . I t is understood t h a t t h e debt of 24.00 m y r i a d s (of denars) did not correspond to the value of the anchor. In this connection t h e writer refers to an autho-r i t a t i v e p autho-r o n o u n c e m e n t of his supeautho-rioautho-r, t h e p autho-r e s b y t e autho-r Oiantinos, concerning t h e aforesaid debt and he stresses t h a t t h e procurator did not t a k e or lay claim t o more t h a n half t h e s u m .
I n t h e l a t t e r p a r t of t h e letter (1. 17—23) Timotheus gives a re-p o r t on another re-plundering. Soldiers — or re-possibly t h e same one — have robbed t h e wine-boat belonging t o a certain K o m o n o f n o t less t h a n 200 big double- measures of wine, and he presents as witness a b r o t h e r acting as f i s h e r m a n to t h e m o n a s t e r y . I n this connection
