Bauschatz - Police Corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt PDF

The Strong Arm of the Law?
Police Corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt

Author(s): John Bauschatz
Source: The Classical Journal, Vol. 103, No. 1 (Oct. - Nov., 2007), pp. 13-39
Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and South
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038657 .
Accessed: 01/10/2013 11:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Classical Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE STRONG ARM OF THE LAW?

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT*
thePtolemaiclaw enforcement
Abstract:
Giventhebroadpowersgranteditsofficers,
abuses.Yet therearefew indications
systemoughtto have beenplaguedbyofficial
thatpolicemisbehavior
was a seriousproblem.Villagerscomplainedaboutpolice
butmanycomplaints
are suspect,highlighting
"abuses"thatlooklike
misbehavior,
and thefactthatsuchcomplaints
wereoftensenttopoliceofficials
properprocedure,
in theranksseemsto havebeen
suggeststhatpeopletrustedthem.Insubordination
are few; and
uncommon;reprimandsto subordinates
frompoliceadministrators
circularsand decreesconcerningcorruptionare oftentoo vague to
government
abouttheextentoreventhetypesofpolicewrongdoing.
provide
firmconclusions
n
O
September14, 109 BCE,a cobblernamed Petermouthisfrom

the Egyptian village of Oxyrhynchapetitioned the strategos
Ptolemaios concerning a brazen instance of officialabuse:
Dionysios, the local police chief,had come to town with a numberof
accomplices and set upon Petermouthis'workshop (P.Coll.Youtie1 16
[Arsinoite,109 BCE?]).' The offendersgrabbed the cobbler and dragged him throughthe streetswith great cruelty,only releasing him
aftertheyhad takenfoursilverdrachmas,1300 bronze drachmasand
even the shirtoffhis back. They also compelled anotherman to arrange an additional paymentof44 silverdrachmas (in Petermouthis'
name) at the bank. Not wantingthese acts to go unpunished, Peterbe transportedto another
mouthisasked Ptolemaiosthattheoffenders
at this point in the
official,probably for reprimand.Unfortunately,
narrativethe documentbreaks off,along with our knowledge of the
case.
*
This essay is a revised and expanded version of a paper given at the 2006
APA/AIA annual meeting.Much of the material derives fromsections of the sixth
chapterofmydissertation(Bauschatz (2005) 177-211). I would like to thankS. Douglas
Olson and the two anonymous readers at The ClassicalJournalfortheirmany helpful
comments,which greatlyimproved the piece, and JoshSosin forhis invaluable feedback on an earlier version of the text.I would also like to thankSwarthmoreCollege
fora facultysummerresearchaward thatmade much of my researchpossible.
SAbbreviationsforeditions of papyri are cited afterOates, Bagnall, et al. (2006).
The Heidelberger Gesamtverzeichnisder griechischenPapyrusurkundenAgyptens
(www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de
/~gv0/gvz.html)provides dates and provenances for
papyri, where possible. On the Ptolemaic stratigosand his subordinates,see Van 't
Dack (1948); Bengtson (1964-7) vol. 3; Hohlwein (1969); Mooren (1984). See n. 4,
below, formore on police chiefs(archiphylakitai).
THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL103.1 (2007) 13-39

14
JOHN BAUSCHATZ
Documents like Petermouthis'petition suggest that the Ptolemaic chorawas rifewith criminalsand crooked cops. Complaints of
police misbehaviorare well known:unnecessaryviolencein searches,
seizures and investigations;unauthorized requisitions of goods;
arbitrarydetention and denial of release; and mistreatmentat tax
time. Administrativeslip-ups were occasionally a problem for law
enforcementofficials,and insubordinationamong officerssometimes
affectedpolice work. Even the king and queen of Egypt addressed
the issue of corruptlaw enforcementpracticesfromtime to time in
royal decrees. But surprisingly,only a few scholarshave approached
the subject of officialcorruptionin Ptolemaic Egypt.2The consensus
is a verygeneral one: thatthe Ptolemaic administrationwas plagued
by corruption,with law enforcementno exception.But the evidence
for this claim is complex and more limited than one might have
thought.Occasional abuses may have occurred,but nothingsuggests
that a cultureof corruptionexisted among the officercorps. In this
paper I argue that corruptionwithin the ranks of the Ptolemaic
police systemwas minimaland thatthe systemwas forthemostpart
reliableand effective.
Given the wide distributionof the Ptolemaic police systemand
the great autonomy of its officers,this is surprising.A broad spectrum of officialsfrom differentspheres policed the countryside.3
Militaryand securitypersonnelprovided some police protection,but
the lion's share of law enforcementfell to the phylakitai,
supervised
by archiphylakitai
(essentiallypolice chiefs)in the towns and villages
of the ch6raand by epistataiphylakit6n
(police commissionersof a
and theirsupervisorswere the
sort)at the nome level.4The phylakitai
naturalpoints of contactforvictimsof crimes,as well as fora central
governmentlookingto enforcelaw and orderin theEgyptiancountryside. These officialsperformeda number of functions.They investi2 On official
corruptionin PtolemaicEgypt,see Crawford(1978); Peremans(1982).
On officialcorruptionand violence in Roman (and Byzantine) Egypt, see Baldwin
(1963) 258-9; Davies (1973) 204-5; also Bagnall (1989); Hobson (1993); Alston (1994).
To my knowledge,no surveyof police corruptionin the Roman provinceof Egypthas
appeared.
3 Bauschatz (2005) provides the mostrecentand comprehensivediscussion of police and police workin PtolemaicEgypt.See also Lesquier (1911) 260-4; Berneker(1935)
78-9; Kool (1954); Bouche-Leclercq(1963) 56-62; Helmis (1986); Thompson (1997).
4
Phylakitai:Lesquier (1911) 261-2; Kool (1954); Bevan (1968) 163-5; Thompson
I pp. 411-16; P.Tebt.I 5 pp. 51 n. ad
(1997) 962-5; Bauschatz (2005) 27-34; Chrest.Wilck.
188, 550-1; P.Hib. II 198 pp. 97-104. Archiphylakitai:
Engers (1909) 73-85; Kool (1954)
43-66; Handrock (1967) 49-50, 118-19; Bauschatz (2005) 34-9; O.Oslo 2 p. 13 with n.
Van 't Dack (1949) 40-4; Kool (1954) 67-85; Bauschatz (2005) 38-46;
Epistataiphylakit6n:
P.Hamb.IV 272 pp. 175-6 n. ad 2. For a briefsurveyof officialsfromotherspheres of
thePtolemaicadministrationwithpolice powers,see Bauschatz (2005) 52-61; forpolicing and securityalong the borders and trade routes of the Ptolemaic empire,Hennig
(2003).

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT
15
gated crimes (visiting crime scenes, examining evidence, sealing

homes, questioningwitnesses and confiscatingproperty),processed
offenders(arresting,detainingand prosecuting),provided protection
as well as private individuals), and
(guarding state infrastructure
even collectedtax revenueforthe centralgovernment.5
Law enforcementmachineryextended throughoutthe Egyptian
ch6raand was presentat every administrativelevel, fromthe village
to the nome. The roadblocks to the successfulcompletionof police
business occurringin such a wide-rangingsystemought to have created an environmentin which certain types of corruptioncould
flourish.Breakdowns in communicationbetween officersin remote
regionsshould have been responsibleformuch of this.Police orders
were generallywrittenon papyrus and sent,via desertroads connectingsmall settlements,throughthe agency of lettercarriersor police
officers,to officialsin other administrativeareas. Recipients were
oftennot addressed by titleand were sometimesidentifiedonly by
theirfirstname and perhaps a patronymic.Given these constraints,
we might expect delays and errors. In addition, time was of the
essence forboth the completionof police business and the delivery
of commands. On the surface,the Ptolemaic systemof officialcorrespondence,thoughperhaps expedientforitstime,seems prohibitively
slow. Withouta doubt, problems with inter-official
communication
were responsibleforoccasional delays in police work.
That the systemfunctionedso well is also surprisingin lightof
thebroad powers enjoyed by police officers.By empoweringlaw enforcementofficialsto confiscategoods, collect tax arrears,provide
thePtolemiesgranted
crowd controland arrestand detain offenders,
5
Visitingcrime scenes: e.g. P.Enteux.65 (Magdola, 221 BCE); PSI IV 393 (Philadelphia, 241 BCE); SB XVIII 13160 (Moeris, 244 or 219 BCE?). Examining evidence:
P.Cair.Zen. III 59379 (?) (Philadelphia, ca. 254-251 BCE); P.Enteux.70 (Magdola, 221
BCE);P.Petr.III 28,E (Sebennytos?,224-218 BCE).Sealing homes (and otherbuildings):
e.g. P.Mich. XVIII 779 (Mouchis, after192 BCE); SB XIV 12089 (Herakleopolite, 130
BCE);ZPE 141 (2002) 185-90 (Herakleopolite,137 BCE),two documentsconcerningthe
same instance.Questioningwitnessesor receivingwitnesstestimony:e.g. P.Enteux.86
(Magdola, 221 BCE);P.Petr.II 32,2a (Arsinoite,217 BCE); SB X 10271 (Magdola, 231 or
206 BCE?).Confiscatingproperty:e.g. P.Cair.Zen.IV 59620 (Arsinoite?,248-239 BCE);
P.Enteux.28 (Theogonis,218 BCE); UPZ I 5, 6 and 6a (Memphis, 163 BCE),threepetitions concerningthe same instance.Arrest,detentionand transportof offenders:e.g.
BGU VI 1248 (Syene, 137 BCE?);P.Lille I 3 (Magdola, after216-215 BCE);P.Ryl.IV 570
(Krokodilopolis,ca. 254-251 BCE). Conducting trials: e.g. P.Cair.Zen. II 59145 (?, 256
BCE);P.Hib. II 233 (?, III BCE);P.Tebt.I 43 (Alexandria,117 BCE).Protectingagriculture:
331 (Kerkeosiris,113 BCE);
e.g. BGU VIII 1851 (Herakleopolite,64-44 BCE);Chrest.Wilck.
P.Cair.Zen.I 59136 (Arsinoite,256 BCE).Protectingpeople: e.g. C.Ord.Ptol.262 (Memphis,99 BCE);P.Petr.II 1 (Arsinoite,III BCE);P.Tebt.III.1 786 (Oxyrhyncha,ca. 138 BCE).
Collectingtax arrears:e.g. C.Ord.Ptol.253 (Kerkeosiris?,118 BCE);P.Cair.Zen.III 59407
(Philadelphia?,III BCE);P.Tebt.III.1 764 (Tebtynis,185 or 161 BCE?).

16
JOHN BAUSCHATZ
them a kind of monopoly on violence.6Brutalitybetween villagers

was not toleratedand was generallybroughtto a halt when police
were alertedand involved.' Villagerassaults on officialswere usually
met with immediatearrestand imprisonment,but the same was not
always the case when the roles were reversed.8The reasons forthis
are not difficultto imagine.Police work oftennecessitateda physical
element,and the degree to which intimidationand forcewere employed depended on the nature of the operation being carried out
and the level of cooperationon the part ofthe offendingparty.Police
oftenhad to take decisive,physicalaction to solve crimes.Withouta
doubt, the behavior of Ptolemaic law enforcementofficialscould
sometimesbe characterizedas abuse. But fromwhose pointof view?
Beforewe consider the evidence forpolice corruptionin Ptolemaic Egypt,a point of terminologymust be clarified.9I will discuss
6
Though it is impossible to quantify,therewas certainlya higherlevel of tolerance for officialviolence against villagers in Ptolemaic Egypt than in most modern
societies.The Ptolemaic statewas determinedto have its financialneeds met and empowered its officialsto employ almost any means necessaryto meet them.As a consequence, villagers sometimessufferedphysical abuse at the hands of local officials
when cooperationwas not fullor paymentwas not offered.Nevertheless,as we shall
see, the inhabitantsof the ch6rawere not withoutrecourse when physical abuse beOn officialviolence in Roman Egypt, see
came excessive or even life-threatening.
Bagnall (1989); Alston (1994). To my knowledge, no comparable study of the Ptolemaicperiod exists.
of HeraklePA pair of documentsfromthe archiveof Dioskourides,phrourarchos
opolis in the middle of the 2nd centuryBCE,demonstratesthatthe agentsofthisofficial
were quick to respond to public disturbances.In the firsttext (P.Diosk. 1 [Herakleopolite, 154 BCE?]),a petition to Dioskourides, a man recounts that an agent of the
had come to his home and arrestedtwo brawlers.In the second (P.Diosk.
phrourarchos
6 [Herakleopolite,146 BCE]),anotherpetitionto Dioskourides, a pair of men asserted
thattheyhad been attackedseveral times,and describedthe arrestof a numberof the
offenders,which was carriedout shortlyafterone of the scufflesby an agent of the
See Bauschatz (2005) 57-9 fora summaryof the police duties of phrourphrourarchos.
archoi,the heads of Ptolemaic garrisons.For an overview of the officeand the archive
ofDioskourides,as well as furtherbibliography,see P.Diosk.
8 For instance,in P.Tebt.I 15 (Kerkeosiris,114 BCE) it was reportedthattwo men
had attacked an epistatesand that one of them had been captured and imprisoned
while the other had escaped. In BGU VIII 1780 (Herakleopolite,56 or 50 BCE?) an
accused partybeing transportedforexaminationorchestratedan attackupon a hypowhichwas onlystoppedby theintervention
ofa machairophoros
and an ephodos.
strategos
On epistatai,see n. 21, below. On the police functionsof machairophoroi,
see Bauschatz
(2005) 60 forattestationsand additional bibliography.On ephodoiand theirsuperiors,
see n. 27, below.
9 I
append here an additional clarification.The reader will noticethatI employ a
numberof moderntechnicaland legal termsto designate the officialswho policed the
Ptolemaic ch6ra("cops," "law enforcement,""police"), the individuals they apprehended for wrongdoing ("criminals") and the behavior of both groups ("criminal,"
"illegal," "lawful," "legal," "unlawful"). Admittedly,many of these terms are inadequate and/or inaccurate when applied to the situation in Ptolemaic Egypt. For
example, it is certainlyanachronisticto talk of the existenceof professional"police"
forces before such organizations were introduced in Europe in the 17thand 18th
centuriesof our era. Nevertheless,I have chosen to referto the "police" of Ptolemaic

17
two typesofpolice abuses in thisessay. First,I will examineinstances

in which police employed their considerable powers of searching,
seizing, arrestingand imprisoningto break the law. I will call this
formof corruption"mistreatment."Afterbrieflydiscussing some of
the impedimentsto the quick completion of police business, I will
then touch on another type of corruption:occasions when police
took no heed of officialorders or deliberatelydisobeyed them, or
"insubordination."I will close with a considerationof a handful of
royaldecrees thathighlightpolice corruptionofboth types.10
Let us begin with mistreatment.
At firstglance, thereappear to
be many indications that mistreatmentof civilians by police was
widespread. Most allegations of such abuses come frompetitions,
perhaps our best source for the mechanics of Ptolemaic policing.
Petitionsprovided the inhabitantsof the Egyptiancountrysidewith
a fast,reliable method of invitingpolice action.11They demonstrate
that the Ptolemaic populace had easy access to law enforcement.
Aftera crimehad been committed,a victimsought out a local scribe,
presenteda condensed account of events and sent a writtenrequest
foraction to an officialat the village level or higher. For the most
Egyptbecause of the many similaritiesbetween the duties of the officialsso identified

and those of many modern police officers(see above). In addition,forthepurposes of
this essay I employ the terms "crime," "criminal" and the like as synonymsfor
"offense,""offender"and relatedwords ("evildoer," "evildoing,""wrongdoing").The
reader may object thatmany,ifnot most of the instancesof wrongdoingdescribed in
thisessay are in facttorts(thatis, civil wrongs) and not crimes,and thatmyuse of the
terms "crimes" and "criminals" to describe private offensesand offendersis thus
misleading. But while this is true fromthe standpointof the modern English legal
system,the distinctionbetween the two typesof offenseswas decidedly less clear-cut
(if it existed) in Ptolemaic Egypt.Finally,I have chosen to employ a numberof terms
to describePtolemaic societythatimplythe existenceof a body of law ("breakingthe
law," "illegal," "lawful,""legal," "unlawful"and thelike) in spiteofthefactthat,as far
as we know, there was no universal code of law in Ptolemaic Egypt to enforceor
break. In using these termsI do not mean to imply thatofficialsattemptedto uphold
and offenderssought to violate a writtencode of law. Rather,I employ the termsto
describe the maintenanceof public order ("lawful," "legal," et al.) or violations of it
("breaking the law," "illegal," "unlawful," et al.). Thus, when I speak of those who
"break the law," I mean those who disturbthe establishedorderby committingoffenses against membersof the society in which theylive. Those who act in a "lawful"
fashion,on the otherhand, are responsibleforrestoringorder aftersuch offenseshave
been committedand, to some extent,forpreventingsuch offensesfromoccurringin
the firstplace.
term"corruption"to encompass both
10 The reader may objectthatmy use of the
types of abuses is misleading,as "corruption"suggests not only officialdishonesty,
bias and abuse, but also (and primarily)financialwrongdoingand even bribery.Yet
as will become clear,most of the alleged police wrongdoingdiscussed in thisessay is
financialin nature. Further,in several cases police officialsappear to have expected,
demanded or receivedbribesfromvillagers.
" Ptolemaic
petitions in general: Hombert/Preaux (1942); di Bitonto Kasser
(1967, 1968 and 1976); Parca (1985). Petitionsto police: Bauschatz (2005) 65-102.

18
JOHN BAUSCHATZ
part, petitionersseem to have known whom to contactfor specific

formsof redress. If the appropriate officialwas not known, a petitionermightappeal to a local officialand ask thatthe rightman be
The people who submittedpetitions came fromall segnotified.12
mentsof Ptolemaicsociety.Evidently,the social limitationsimposed
age, social status,professionand even literacylevel
by sex, ethnicity,
did not preventpetitionersfromwritingappeals. Even the poorest
and most disadvantaged membersof societywere effectivepetitioners.13
Petitionsare centralto our understandingof the Ptolemaic law
enforcementsystem,but fora numberof reasons theymustbe handled with care. To begin with,petitionsare heavilybiased documents.
In his or her appeal, a petitionerhad the opportunityto presentthe
factsof an incidentexactlyas he or she saw them,withoutany objection or cross-examinationfromthe accused. As a result,a petition
provides us with only one side of a story.In addition, petitionsare
rhetoricaldocuments, in which descriptions of pathosare central.
The writersof petitionsclearlyunderstood thatdetailed accounts of
pain and sufferingwere importantingredientsforsuccessfulclaims.
Doubtless some petitioners,seeking to evoke as much pity as possible in the recipientsof theirappeals, magnifiedthe extentof their
inventedadditional abuses or even lied outrightabout the
suffering,
mistreatmenttheyalleged. A final limitationof the petitionsas evidence forpolice corruptionis theirscope. They protestwrongdoing
by individual officersand theiraccomplices,but do not indicatethat
police organized themselvesinto groups forextortion,theftand the
like. Such institutionalizedcorruption,though well-known today,
seems to have been for the most part foreignto the Egypt of the
Ptolemies.Though thereare indicationsthatpolice sometimesoperated in groups for nefariouspurposes, there are virtuallyno complaintsof organized,conspiratorial,systematicextortion.14
To begin with,police officerswere occasionally accused of theft
and confiscation.Police were sometimesalleged to have misappropriatedmoney,produce,animals or othergoods.'5 In one case, it was
12 Addressees in
petitionsto police: Bauschatz (2005) 82-6. Petitionsto officials
with instructionsthatthe recipientnotifythe appropriateofficial(s)or take the correct
action:e.g. P.Heid. IX 422 (Tinteris,158 BCE);433 (Herakleopolite,161-155 BCE);P.Tebt.
141 (Kerkeosiris,105-90 BCE).
13
Bauschatz (2005) 81-2.
14 A handful of royal decrees and circularsseem to call attentionto
widespread
extortionby police officials:C.Ord.Ptol.230-1 (?, 183 BCE);34 (Oxyrhynchus?,186 BCE);
53 (Kerkeosiris?,118 BCE);55 (Tebtynis,ca. 118 BCE);P.Hib. II 198 (Arsinoite?,after242
BCE);P.Mil.Congr.XVII pg. 29.10-13 (?) (?, 100-99 BCE).Yet royal edicts did not necessarilyreflectconfirmedinstancesoflaw enforcement
wrongdoing.On thedecrees listed
here,see below.
15
Money: e.g. P.Cair.Zen.IV 59753.70-4 (?, III BCE),in which the writernoted that
he had been discoveredhiding a ship by some rhabdophoroi
and paid thema drachma,

POLICE CORRUPTIONIN PTOLEMAICEGYPT
19
had been extorting

wine
reportedthatan assistantto thestrategos
138BCE]);theoffender
was to
(ZPE 141[2002]:182-4[Herakleopolite,
be arrested
and tried.Elsewherea swineherd
whohad beendetained
an
his
on
home
by archiphylakitis way
reportedthatthe policeman
had confiscated
V 59819[Krokodilopolis?,
somepigs(P.Cair.Zen.
254
BCE]).Anothermancomplainedthathisgrainhad beenstolenfroma
floorsand askedthata hal6nophylax
and his associpairofthreshing
atesbe arrestedas suspects(P.Oxy.XII 1465[Oxyrhynchite,
I BCE]).16
We also see occasionalchargesofwrongful
arrestand/orimprisonment.In at least six cases, petitioners
claimedthatpolice officials
had made unjustarrestsand carriedout unwarranted
detentions.17
likely under compulsion; P.Coll.YoutieI 16 (Arsinoite, 109 BCE?), where an archiand his subordinatesseized foursilverdrachmasand 1300 bronze drachmas
phylakitis
froma man; P.Enteux.28 (Theogonis,218 BCE),in which a man accused a phylakites
of
illegally taking possession of a cup and 12 drachmas and only returningthe cup.
Produce: e.g. P.Enteux. 55 (Magdola, 222 BCE), where a petitioneralleged that an
had illegallysown his allotment
offenderacting in conjunctionwith a gendmatophylax
and subsequentlyconfiscatedthe produce; P.Erasm.I 1 (Oxyrhyncha,148-147 BCE),in
and an archiphylakitis;
which a man complained of extortionof rent by a phylakites
P.Princ. III 117 (Theadelphia, 55-54 or 4-3 BCE?), a hypomnema
concerninga grain
Animals: e.g. BGU III
deposit disagreementbetween a petitionerand a thisaurophylax.
had confis1012 (Philadelphia, 170 BCE),where a man charged that an archiphylakites
cated a numberof probatawithoutcause; P.Cair.Zen.III 59312 (Arsinoite,250 BCE),a
list of pigs with a note that the agents of a phylakitishad stolen one; SB XVI 12468
(Arsinoite?,III BCE), in which a man accused a phylakitesof confiscatinga donkey
laden with sacks of grain and bread. Other goods: e.g. UPZ I 5, 6 and 6a (Memphis,
163 BCE),three accounts of a series of raids on a temple by a number of religious
officialsand (in one instance) a subordinate of the epistatis;ZPE 141 (2002) 185-90
(Herakleopolite,137 BCE),two documentsconcerninga raid, arrest,home sealing and
confiscationof a pickled goose and two pillows, among otherthings,by the agents of
see n. 19, below;
an archiphylakites
acting without officialsanction.On rhabdophoroi,
n. 32, below; on thesaurophylakes,
see
on gendmatophylakes
and the gendmatophylakia,
Bauschatz (2005) 56.
16 As their title
guarded threshingfloors. They likely
suggests, hal6nophylakes
the
played an importantrole in the successful completion of the gendmatophylakia,
occur in only a few Ptolemaic texts
annual guarding of crops, though hal6nophylakes
and the formhal6nophylax
only once: P.Bingen33.3 (?, III-II BCE): a&r.wvoupX()[ca. ?]
P.Cair.Zen.IV 59745.85-7 (Philadelphia?, 255-254 BCE): "IETEI'iv I "Apapt
E)OTopTa;
P.Col. IV 74.12 (?) (Phila(Pheros [88] is likelyalso a hal6nophylax);
at.ovoq)uXalKOOVTi
I BCE):2apadelphia?, 248 BCE):[ca. ?]voqikXaKa;P.Oxy. XII 1465.7-8 (Oxyrhynchite,
see below, n. 32.
For more on thegenematophylakia,
TrriovaI &XhovopqpXa[K]a.
17 P.Coll.YoutieI 16
(Arsinoite,109 BCE?); P.Enteux.84 (Ghoran, 285-221 BCE);
II
P.Hib. 1203
(?, 246-221 BCE);P.Mich.XVIII 773 (Oxyrhynchaor Krokodilopolis,ca. 194
BCE)and 774 (Oxyrhyncha,ca. 194-193 BCE),the same case in both texts;P.Ryl.IV 570
(Krokodilopolis,ca. 254-251 BCE);P.Tebt.III.1 777 (Tebtynis,II BCE). In P.Cair.Zen.III
afterthe
arresteda man and anotherphylakitcs
59475 (Philadelphia,III BCE)a phylakites
two gained possession of a runawayhorse thathad been locked up by the local police.
The arrestseems to have been the resultof a mistake,not bias. It should be noted that
many more petitionsdetailing complaintsof wrongfularrestand detentionsurvive.
Those not mentionedhere contain accusations against officialsfromotherspheres of

20
JOHN BAUSCHATZ
These petitionersdepicted their arrest and imprisonmentas arbitrary.As one might expect, alleged victims regularly maintained
theirinnocencein lettersto officialscomplainingof these practices.18
One petitionerrequested an investigationinto charges that a police
chiefhad wronglyarrestedone of his slaves (P.Hib. II 203 [?, 246-221
BCE]). Elsewhere a man complained that a tax farmerand a rhabdophoroshad unjustlyarrestedand whipped him, extorteda lump of
silver and a necklace fromhim, and detained him for one night
(P.Mich. XVIII 773 [Oxyrhynchaor Krokodilopolis,ca. 194 BCE]and
774 [Oxyrhyncha,ca. 194-193 BCE]).19In a finalcase, a man who had
been placed in prison by an angryrelativewith the cooperationof a
was denied release by a desmophylax,
even afterthe relative
phylakites
had requested that he be set free (P.Enteux. 84 [Ghoran, 285-221
BCE]).20
Unjustarrestscould involvephysicalabuse, oftenoutlinedin grim

detail by petitioners.In a fragmentary
letter,forexample, a prisoner
he
had
of
the
arrest
sufferedat the hands of the
unjust
complained
Kerkesouchan police, who had acted with bia and hybrisin bringing
him in (P.Ryl.IV 570 [Krokodilopolis,ca. 254-251 BCE]).In the case of
the cobblerfromOxyrhyncha,the offendingofficialswere alleged to
have executedthe arrest"witheveryformof mistreatment
and hubris
and blows" (P.Coll.YoutieI 16.15-16 [Arsinoite,109 BCE?]:pET& TOO
TraVTO-r I OKUXhpO0Kai I3PpECO5 Kal TIXTiyCwV).According to another
governmentor do not specifythe titlesor administrativedomains of the offending

parties. See e.g. BGU VIII 1821 (Herakleopolite,57-56 BCE),in which a man complained that he had been unjustlyarrestedby a tax officialand some accomplices;
P.Cair.Zen. III 59368 (Memphis?, 241 BCE), a letter detailing the unjust arrest and
detentionof a chortophylax
by an oikonomos;SB XX 14708 (Theadelphia, 151 BCE),a
petitiondescribingthe arbitraryjailing of a man at the hands of a corruptkdmarchis.
On phylakeswith duties in the realm of law enforcement(among these chortophylakes),
see Bauschatz (2005) 52-6; on oikonomoi,
n. 33, below; on k6marchai,
Berneker(1935)
127-30; P.Yale 153 pp. 156-61.
18 Nevertheless,detainees sometimesadmittedthat
theyhad erredand asked for
forgiveness.In P.Cair.Zen.III 59495 (Philadelphia?, III BCE),forexample, two swineherds sought pity fromZenon fortheirwrongdoing,owning up to theirguilt while
encouraging him to rememberthat everyone makes mistakes (2-3: dcv yap ip6pTOPIEVT[E]TIICOpfElEIOa O jE'iS yaxp (xvap6CpTlT65ioTrlv). In P.Polit.Iud.2 (Herakleopolite,ca. 135 BCE),a prisonerrequested thathe be freedfromthephylakesince he had
learned his lesson and had already spent enough timewasting away in detention(611: TuYXQVCOl.KcTatiCOSW
I VEVOUETTJP.EVO,
I Kai TTrpav qpuXaKfi5
I E'iXrlq)CS
iKav6a TE I
On Zenon, see n. 35, below.
Eiqipa5 KaTErpOapl1pEvos).
19 On
see Bauschatz (2005) 59-60. The rhabdophoros
in these texts,a
rhabdophoroi,
certainMenelaos, is not given a title,but his designation as ho katapolin (773.11-12;
774.12-13) makes the identificationlikely; compare PSI IV 332.11 (Philadelphia, 257
BCE):a'p830o6pcw TCO KarKTTrr6Atv.
were the receipt and release of prisoners
20 Among the duties of desmophylakes
and thereceiptofbail payments:Bauschatz (2005) 118-19 and 121.

21
petition,when a launderer disputed payment by an epistatesfor a

cloak (himation)the laundererhad been asked to wash, the epistates
beat and stomped him and handed him over to the village police (SB
XX 15001 [Krokodilopolis,217 BCE]).21Later, the epistatesreturned
with accomplices, administeredan additional beating and scattered
thelaunderer'smerchandiseover thefloorof his shop.
Occasionally police officerscarried out complex, multifaceted
sting operations. These offensivesagainst homes and possessions
were oftenperceived as unjust.They seem to have followeda predictable series of steps. An invasion of a house or otherbuilding typically came first,followed by an assault on the inhabitants,a search
forvaluables, and thendeparture,generallywith goods and/or people in tow. The storyof the cobbler fromOxyrhynchusis a good
example (P.Coll.YoutieI 16 [Arsinoite,109 BCE?]).In a similarincident,
a number of police officialsarrestedsome farmers,sealed a home,
confiscateditems and departed, all without officialsanction (ZPE
141 [2002] 185-90 [Herakleopolite,137 BCE]).In a finalcase, an agent
and an accomplice
a numberof phylakitai
of a templearchiphylakites,
illegallysearchedthetempleforweapons allegedlyhidden there(UPZ
I 5, 6 and 6a [Memphis, 163 BCE]).2 Finding nothing,the police left
the scene; but the accomplice returnedlater, in what looks like a
for
surprise inspection,accompanied by an agent of the epistatAs,
additional searchingand confiscation.23
On the surface at least, the evidence from petitions for mistreatmentof civiliansby police seems damning.But is it conclusive?
To begin with, procedures employed in "illegal" confiscationsand
those sanctionedby the governmentforthe payment of tax arrears
are similar.In one case, a petitionercomplained to an epistatisthatan
had appropriated some of his taxable livestock and
archiphylakitis
enclosed themin the home of one of his officers(BGU III 1012 [Philadelphia,170 BCE]).Elsewherea man noted thathe was being hounded
forthe returnof some governmentseed as well
by an archiphylakitis
as his crops,which had been wronglyconfiscatedby anotherofficial
21
Epistatai:Lavigne (1945); Van 't Dack (1949) 39-44, (1951) 20-3 and 46-7, and
(1989); Wolff(1970) 171-6; Bauschatz (2005) 46-9; P.Enteux.introduction.These officials, the highest-ranking
representativesof the centralgovernmentin the towns and
had
direct
of
the
(and thus by extensupervisionover the archiphylakitai
villages
ch6ra,
in theiradministrativeareas: Bauschatz (2005) 48-9.
sion thephylakitai)
22
were found in villages, the regions around villages, merides,
Archiphylakitai
toparchies,nomes and even temples:Bauschatz (2005) 37.
23 See also BGU VIII 1855 (Herakleopolite,64-44 BCE),a petitionconcerningan
The
instance of breaking and enteringby a group of men including an archephodos.
raidersbrokedown the door to thepetitioner'shouse, mistreatedhis motherand took a
dovecote. The petitionercharacterizedthe invasion and assault as violent (p3iatov,18)
and requested that the activitiesof the offendingofficialsbe broughtto a halt, but
never indicated thattherewas no justificationforthe raid. For more on this text,see
below.

JOHN BAUSCHATZ
22
and
(BGU VIII 1836 [Herakleopolite,51-50 BCE]). Yet archiphylakitai
theirsubordinateswere regularlyemployed forthecollectionofdebts
to the crown.24The extractionof state debts fromdebtorsunwilling
or unable to pay must occasionally have involved unpleasant action
and even promptedpetitions.One wonders how many complaintsof
wrongfulconfiscationby police officialswere writtenout of spite or
resentmentat a legal (though physical) seizure of assets by the
government.To a subsistencefarmertheline betweenjust and unjust
extractioncould be blurred.
Similardoubts arise when we reconsidercases in which villagers
complained of unfairarrestsor imprisonments.25
Many crimescould
lead to imprisonmentin PtolemaicEgypt,but incarcerationwas often
the result of debts.26Petitionerssometimes claimed that they had
been dragged away or locked up even though they owed no debt,
taxes or otherwise.One prisonercomplained thathe had been arrested by a tax officialand accomplices even thoughhe owed the crown
nothing(BGU VIII 1821 [Herakleopolite,57-56 BCE]).Anotherasked
forhelp in securingrelease fromprison,where he had been sent unjustlyon a charge of debt,thoughhe had already paid the crown its
due (P.Cair.Zen. III 59496 [Krokodilopolis,248-241 BCE]). Even the
cobblerfromOxyrhynchamay not have been the innocenthe sought
to appear (P.Coll.YoutieI 16 [Arsinoite,109 BCE?]).The factthat the
and his accomplicesextracteda large amount ofmoney
archiphylakitis
fromhim-and in such a brazen manner-suggests thathe had defaultedon a debt to the state.In many,ifnot most cases, police seem
to have arrested people believed to be state debtors under orders
and with just cause. But because of slow (or no) communication
between officials,mistakes were sometimes made and the wrong
people arrested.In any case, violence was certainlyemployed from
time to time to bring in those thoughtto have defaulted on debts.
Corruptionmay not have been a huge factorin such arrests.Yet we
generally cannot be certain about the veracityof claims of unjust
arrestfor debt, and petitions containingsuch claims must accordinglybe handled withcaution.
The evidence forpolice raids provides both thebest examples of
alleged police mistreatmentof civilians and some of the finestinstances of dedicated police work. Withoutquestion,these operations
could involve violence against people and property:breakingdown
doors, seizing and arrestingindividuals and confiscatinggoods. Yet,
as we have just seen, routinepolice business involved the same sorts
of activities.Petitionerswho complained of police raids were careful
24 Bauschatz (2005) 170-3.
25
On imprisonmentin PtolemaicEgypt,see Taubenschlag (1959); H6lmis (1986);

Ambaglio (1987); Marcone (1999); Bauschatz (2005) 114-26.
26Bauschatz (2005) 114-15.

23
to submit graphic accounts of events. But though they oftenproclaimed theirinnocence,theyrarelydemonstratedconclusivelythat

theywere withoutfaultor blame. In one case, a man claimed thata
had broken down the door
group of men, including an archephodos,
to his house, mistreatedhis motherand seized a dovecote (BGU VIII
1855 [Herakleopolite,64-44 BCE]).27The writerrequested that the
petitionedofficialbring in and trythe offenders,to ensure thatthey
attemptednothingviolentin thefutureand would receivetheproper
punishment.But the details of the raid are puzzling. Why would so
many officialshave carriedout such a brutaloperationsolely forthe
purpose of taking a birdhouse and beating up an old lady? The
petitionerseems to have withheld information.For one thing,he
does not say thatthe police had no rightto seize the property.Could
thishave been a government-sanctioned
operationto obtainpayment
fora debt? Perhaps someone had accused the petitioner'smotherof
having stolen the dovecote, necessitatinga police investigationand
confiscationof the allegedly stolen goods.28Alternatively,the dovecote may have been stolen by someone else and deposited in the
Or perhaps itwas stolenproperty
petitioner'shouse forsafekeeping.29
thathad been purchased unawares by the petitioner,who will then
have thoughthe was in the right,even if he was not. In addition,it
seems likely that governmentagents bent on extortionwould have
takenmore thana large birdhouse.Would such a prize have merited
the time and effortto assemble a team of officialsand coordinatea
raid? The evidence not supplied in this case, and in a handful of
otherslike it,raises questions about the informationfurnishedby the
petitioner."gNot all police raids were necessarily the actions of
27 Archephodoi
appear in only threePtolemaic texts:BGU VIII 1855.7-8 (Herakleopolite, 64-44 BCE); P.IFAO II 4.3-4 (Arsinoite,103 BCE); P.Tebt.I 90.i.1 (Tebtynis,I
BCE).See Bauschatz (2005) 56-7.
28
Requests for confiscationof stolen/borrowedproperty:e.g. BGU VIII 1761
(Herakleopolite,50 BCE),in which a man detailed the illegal occupation of his house
and confiscationof his crops by an offenderand requested thatthe stolenproduce be
impounded; P.Cair.Zen.II 59145 (?, 256 BCE),where a woman who had been robbed
asked Zenon to have an archiphylakitis
investigateand returnthe stolen items,which
had been found; P.Enteux.42 (Magdola, 221 BCE),in which a man complained that a
villager had not returnedthe hoes and money he had borrowed and asked that the
epistatiscompel the accused to hand themover.
29
Harboring of stolen goods: e.g. P.Hib. I 34 (Oxyrhynchite,243 BCE) and 73
244-243 BCE),where an archiphylakitis
illegally(?) held a stolendonkey
(Oxyrhynchite,
in his home; II 198.86-92 (Arsinoite?,after242 BCE), a royal decree specifyingthat
those who harboredrowerswho had run away fromthe royal fleetwere to be penalized; SB VIII 9792 (Hermoupolis Magna, 162 BCE),in which a petitionerrelated that
one ofhis stolendonkeyshad been discovered in a templealong withthe thief(?) and
asked thatthe thiefbe detained and the animal returned.
II 59275 (Arsinoite,251 BCE),a petitionfroma man
30 See also, e.g., P.Cair.Zen.
who had been arrested and had his home sealed and his meat confiscatedby a
numberof tax officials,likelybecause of a failureto pay his taxes (thoughhe does not

24
JOHN BAUSCHATZ
corruptofficials;many were likely legitimate,if sometimesviolent,

operationsdesigned to obtain missing,owed or stolenproperty.
Furtherevidence for the need to closely scrutinize reports of
police mistreatmentof civilians comes from the fact that alleged
victimssometimescomplained about police officialsto otherpolice
officers,often those with supervisorypowers over the offending
parties. One petitionercomplained to an epistatesthat an archiphylakiteshad wronglyconfiscatedsome of his flocksand handed them
over to one of his officers(BGU III 1012 [Philadelphia, 170 BCE]).
Archiphylakitai
regularly answered to epistatai;this victim, quite
reasonably,complained to the offender'ssuperior.31Some petitions
went over the heads of the town or village police. In the example of
the cobbler,the alleged victimwrote to the strategosconcerningthe
violent extortionof the archiphylakites
(P.Coll.YoutieI 16 [Arsinoite,
109 BCE?]).The petitionermay have had no recourseforhis complaint
in the immediate vicinityand been obliged to contact a provincial
official.Elsewhere,anotherpetitionerlikewise wrote to the strategos
to complain that he had been cheated by a genematophylax
and an
accomplice (P.Enteux.55 [Magdola, 222 BCE]).32He asked that the
epistatessend the accused for examinationbefore the strategos.The
picture is clear: when law enforcementofficialsmisbehaved, other
law enforcement
officialswere called on to providejustice.Petitioners
would not have complained to police officersabout the abuses of
otherpolice officersunless theyfeltsome general confidencein the
police system.
Afterall, theyhad the option of reportingpolice misbehaviorto
civil or financialofficials.In the case of thelaundererattackedby the
a
epistates,the alleged victimfiled his complaintwith the oikonomos,
financialofficer(SB XX 14999 [Krokodilopolis?,217 BCE]).33In another
to complainthat
case, a graintransportofficialwroteto theepimeletes
an archiphylakites
had improperlyarresteda number of shipbuilders
say as much); P.Mich.XVIII 779 (Mouchis, after192 BCE),where a man requested that
the phylakitai
arrestor seal the home of an oikonomos
who had extorteda large sum of
money fromhim (perhaps as an overdue tax payment;see also P.Mich. XVIII 778);
UPZ I 5, 6 and 6a (Memphis, 163 BCE),threepetitionsdetailinga pair of searches for
some phylaweapons carriedout in a templeby an agent of the templearchiphylakitis,
kitai and other accomplices. The petitionerportrayed the searches (especially the
second) as violentand unjust.
31
Epistataihad many police duties,a numberof which overlapped with those of
the phylakitai
and theirsuperiors.See n. 21, above, formore on these officials.For the
administrativetiesbetweenepistataiand archiphylakitai,
see Bauschatz (2005) 47-9.
and the gendmatophylakes
who ran it: see e.g. Bauschatz (2005)
32 Gendmatophylakia
148-52 and 158-66; P.Mich.XVIII 769 pp. 99-103; P.Tebt.I 27 pp. 105-14.
Berneker(1935) 94-102 in general; Bauschatz (2005) 152-8 on the
33 Oikonomoi:
and epimeletai(on whom see the folrelationshipbetween oikonomoi,
archiphylakitai
lowing note).

25
166 [Arsinoite,218 BCE]).34Sometimes petitionersap(Chrest.Wilck.

to
other
pealed
importantpeople. The man who complained that a
had
wrote to the wellphylakites wronglyarrestedhis brother-in-law
known and well-connectedZenon of Kaunos forredress (P.Cair.Zen.
III 59475 [Philadelphia,III BCE]).35Elsewhere a farmercomplained to
the king and queen that an archiphylakites
and a phylakites
had atto
extract
rent
from
him
two
on
occasions
tempted
illegally
separate
(P.Erasm.I 1 [Oxyrhyncha,148-147 BCE]); the petitionerasked that
the sovereigns contactthe village epistatesto arrange a trial.36
There
was no officialappeals procedure. Petitionersseem to have contactedwhomevertheythoughtmightsecure full,fastsatisfaction,
be
it police, civil,financialor other.The factthatpetitionersbotheredto
submit such grievances to governmentagents suggests that they
expected to receive justice. That even a handful of complaints of
police misbehaviorfound theirway to law enforcementofficialssuggests thatthe police force,thoughsurelycontaininga fewbad seeds,
forthe most part upheld the law reliably.People endured abuses at
the hands of the policemen who served them,but not on a regular
basis.
Yet corruptionin theranksofthePtolemaicpolice was notlimited
to instances of brutalitydirected at villagers. As with any large
organization,breakdowns occurredin the administrativemachinery
of law and order in Ptolemaic Egypt. Miscommunicationwas occasionally a problem,leading to delayed or denied justice forvictims
of crime.In a few cases, police were slow to act on officialorders or
took no action whatsoever.In one instance,a superiortook an archito task forfailingto act expedientlyon ordersconcerninga
phylakitis
of
quantity timber(P.Tebt.III.1 747 [Tebtynis,243 BCE]).37 In another.
a petitionernoted thatthe recipientof his complaint,a stratigos,had
previouslyordered an epistatisto transportan offenderfortrial(SB
XXIV 16295 [Oxyrhyncha,199 BCE]).The epistates,however,had not
taken action, so the petitionerrequested that the strategosgive the
orderto send the accused a second timeand in a more forcefulmanner. A final example preserves an instance of multiple counts of
34 The
epimel^tiswas an upper-level officialwith authorityin certain areas of
financialadministration:Berneker(1935) 90-4.
35On Zenon and the archive of documents associated with him, see Rostovtzeff
(1922); Pestman(1981); Orrieux(1983, 1985); Clarysseand Vandorpe (1995).
36 See
also, e.g., P.Cair.Zen. V 59819 (Krokodilopolis?,254 BCE),a letterfroma
swineherdto Zenon, in which the formerdetailed his three-daydetentionby an archiand the resultingloss of threeof Zenon's pigs; P.Ryl.IV 570 (Krokodilopolis,
phylakitis
ca. 254-251 BCE),a petitionto Zenon froma man who alleged that he had been unjustly arrested by the phylakitaiof Kerkesoucha; SB XX 15001 (Krokodilopolis,217
BCE),an appeal to the king concerningabuses sufferedat the hands of an epistatisand
his accomplices.
37 The
Patron,is not given a titlein this text,but the identification
archiphylakites,
is secure.See n. 52, below.

26
JOHN BAUSCHATZ
officialinaction(SB XVI12468 [Arsinoite?,III BCE]).A man en routeto

He
visit a prisonerhad had his donkey confiscatedby a phylakites.
had submitteda petitionto a police officialabout the theft,but did
forredress.38
not receive a summons,so he went to an archimachimos
Yet not even this had produced satisfactoryresults,and the victim
was compelled to writeagain to the officialoriginallypetitionedto
to returnhis property.39
urge thearchimachimos
Police inaction and slow response seem to have been serious
issues. Governmentagents occasionally ended theirinstructionsto
subordinates with threatsof punishmentfor inaction or improper
action. In one case, for instance, an officialwas ordered to bring
a policeman into anotheradministrativedistrictand told not to do
otherwise(SB VI 9104 [Arsinoite,195 BCE]).In another,an oikonomos
commanded an archiphylakitis
to make an arrest and assured him
thathe would be doing wrong if he failed to follow orders (P.Heid.
VII 393 [Arsinoite/
Memphite, III BCE]).40Elsewhere, an unknown
officialforwardedinstructionsconcerningthe harvestingof treesfor
the king,exhortingthe "man in charge of the police" ([T6v] brri
TC)v
q)uaKITTCV,
14) not to disregardthe orders,but to make theirexecution a priority(SB VI 9215 [Oxyrhynchus,250 BCE]).In a finalcase,
an officialwas asked to preventa phylakitis
frombecomingentangled
in unnecessarybusiness and to compel him to remain sober,insofar
as he was able (BGU III 1011.iii.4-9[?, II BCE]).Clearly,police were
not immune frombad behavior or the bad reputationsconnected
with it.41
38 The officialpetitionedin this case is nowhere given a title.Machimoi:scholaris extensive;see Goudriaan

ship on these officialsand theirsupervisors(archimachimoi)
(1988) 121-5; Oates (1994); and especially P.Yale I 33 pp. 86-91, where a very detailed
account of the attestationsforand duties of,as well as previous scholarshipon, machimoiis given.
39 See also,
e.g., P.Enteux.85 (Magdola, 221 BCE),where a petitionernoted thathe
had previously submitteda complaintto the stratigosconcerningthe distributionof
some grain,and thatthe strategoshad subsequentlyordered the competentepistatisto
take action,but the epistateshad done nothing;P.Mich. XVIII 779 (Mouchis, after192
BCE), in which a petitionerrelated that aftera previous petitionto an agent of the
had been instructed
dioiketisconcerningextortion(P.Mich.XVIII 778), an archiphylakitis
to bringin an offender,but had not done so; P.Princ.III 117 (Theadelphia,55-54 or 4-3
she
BCE?),where a woman noted thataftershe had been cheated by a thisaurophylax,
had submitteda petitionto the addressee (a stratigos)who in turnorderedthe village
but had
epistatesto bringin the accused. The epistateshad arrestedthe thesaurophylax,
takenno stepsto transporthim.
40 Neitherthe oikonomos,
Dikaios, is given a title
Zephyros,nor the archiphylakitis,
in the document. For the identificationof Zephyros,see P.Heid. VII 393 pp. 43-4; for
Dikaios, P.Heid.VII 393 pp. 45-6; Pros.Ptol.4562.
41 It was not exclusivelytheirsuperiorswho developed bad impressionsof undisciplinedpolice officials.Sometimesan unpopular policeman mightfindhimselfthe
object of ridicule: P.KijlnIX 367.2 (Arsinoiteor Herakleopolite?,II BCE): 6 KEKOXXOTTEUKCO AIOVGuIO5 6 &pX()P[u(\aKiTTnI)].

27
We are especially well-informedabout the activitiesof a certain

police officialknown onlyas Ptolemaios,who was regularlyreminded
thathe was to follow orders and not foul up.42 He is given a titlein
none of the textsin which he appears, but the scope of his duties
(extractingrent payments, running errands, transportingpeople)
and the officialsfromwhom he received instruction(including an
and an oikonomos)
led the editorsof P.Hib. I (p. 194) to
archiphylakitis
The officialinstructions
suggest thathe may have been a phylakites.43
that reached him regularlyincluded forcefullanguage. We see him
threatenedwith having to pay for any inaccuracies detected in the
agriculturalaccounts entrustedto him, told not to drag his feetin
accomplishingbusiness, scolded for harassing a taxpayer,encouraged not to do otherthan as he was instructedand, in one instance,
upbraided forpoor conduct in the village and threatenedwith puntheevidence thatPtolemaios
ishmentforhis actions.44Unfortunately,
was notthemostresponsibleofpolice officers,
thoughoverwhelming,
is all circumstantial.Indeed, it may provide more informationabout
the management style of commanding officersthan the poor work
habitsof subordinates.
The reasons behind instances of officialinaction are usually
impossible to determine,but sensible explanations can occasionally
whom an
be offered.In one case, forexample, a numberof phylakitai
had selected to serve as gendmatophylakes
failed to
archiphylakitis
42 Ptolemaios
appears in the following16 texts,all of Oxyrhynchiteprovenance
(exceptwhere indicated):P.Hib. I 51 (245 BCE);52 (ca. 245 BCE);53 (246 BCE);54 (ca. 245
BCE);57 (248 BCE);58 (245-244 BCE);59 (ca. 245 BCE);60 (ca. 245 BCE);61 (245 BCE);62
(Hibeh, 245 BCE);130 (ca. 247 BCE);167 (ca. 245 BCE);168 (ca. 245 BCE);II 240 (?, ca. 250245 BCE);and P. Yale I 34 (250 BCE) and 35 (249 BCE).For a discussion of these papyri,
see P. Yale I pp. 94-5.
43 The editorsof P.Yale I later
suggested thatPtolemaios was most likelya k6mocitingas compellingindicatorshis attestedpolice and financialduties and
grammateus,
his contactwith the oikonomos(pp. 94-5). Yet the Ptolemaic police had a number of
financialduties in theirvillages and maintained regular contactwith the oikonomos:
Bauschatz (2005) 152-8. Certaintyis impossible,but it seems more likely that Ptolemaios was a police, ratherthan a civil,official.Extractingpayments:P.Hib. I 51; 52; 53;
130; 167 (?); P.Yale I 35. Runningerrands:P.Hib. I 54; 58. Executingarrests/transfers:
P.Hib.157; 59; 60; 61; 62; 168; P.Yale I 34. Ptolemaios receiveda reprimandfromPatron,
in P.Yale I 35 (see n. 52, below, forthe identificationof Patron).He was
archiphylakitis
contactedby Zenodoros, oikonomosand toparchesin P.Hib. I 59 and 60, and wrote to
of
Zenodoros in P.Hib. II 240 (see Pros.Ptol.553a = 1042 [?] = 1043 forthe identification
Zenodoros).
44 Inaccuracies:
P.Hib. 1 53.3-4: 1TEIpC o)v &oapahXc5
tEyyuav cbS TrpOSoa I ToO
X6[y]ou icopovou. Foot-dragging:P.Hib. 1 168 (no line numbers given): Kai TOOTO
oTrrco5~ Trapipycs. Eo-Tra, &6x Ipa lipEpal TrTpEXE
[a0xT6v];P.Yale 134.4-6: iv ~ I
S auTobV3dyEtS, [o] yyaXp
TrrEiovaI Xp[6vov].
3paB0TEpovnTotlft
oXolbcd6ol.pvEtv
to
follow instructions:
35.7-8:
P.Yale
I
a
Told
fv6IXXE
pil
Scolding:
ovpiv
[a]T6OV.
62.16:
P.Hib. 158.11-12: vi oGv
viXcoS I Trotl'ot[s];60.8-9: 6TrcrSI pi 6iao S -rrotlOES;
Ei pl I raoGoEl
59.9-12:
Threatened:
ioat.
I
P.Hib.
K[a]KO[6]Tc[1] lai aXcoXS
[K]sil
Tro<t>cOvI 8v TIi KCjpT)[t]PETaPEIXh[(]EtL OL.

JOHN BAUSCHATZ
28
appear forduty,in spite ofhaving sworn theiroaths of office(P.Tebt.

III.1 731 [Ibion Eikosipentarouron/Tebtynis,153-152 or 142-141
was compulsoryand an
BCE?]). Perhaps the post of gendmatophylax
unwelcome burden on the native Egyptians who were generally
recruitedto fillit at the worst time of the year.45In othercases miscommunicationwas likely a factor.Communicationbetween police
was sometimesa complex and drawn-outprocess. It is reasonable to
thinkthatin some instancesreprimandsfornot followingprevious
orders were delivered to officialswho had never receivedthe orders
in the firstplace, in which case theirinaction was an unavoidable
consequence of miscommunication.As one mightexpect, evidence
thatsuch miscommunicationoccurreddoes not survive.
Inaction and slow response were not the only types of insubordination.Sometimespolice officialsmade misinformed,biased or
illegal decisions. In one case, a dispossessed man relatedthatthe village epistatishad wronglyexpelled him and his horse fromhis home,
which had then been occupied by another (P.Enteux.14 [Magdola,
222 BCE]). Elsewhere, a number of liturgy-exempt
hierodouloicomhad forcedthemto work at the
plained thatthevillage archiphylakitis
harvestand to make bricks(P.Cair.Zen.III 59451 [Sophthis,III BCE]).
The petitionershad been released fromliturgicalwork firstby the
In a finalexample, a prisonercomking and thenby the dioiketis.46
(P.Tebt.III.1
plained of unfairtreatmentat thehands of a desmophylax
777 [Tebtynis,II BCE]).He had given a bail paymentto thejailor,but
thejailor had been dissatisfiedwithit and had declined to release the
prisoner. As we see here, officialbias was sometimes a problem.
When necessary,the sovereignstook steps to preventit.47
Law enforcement
officialsalso deliberatelydisobeyed commands
fromtimeto time.In at least threecases, police officersseem to have
taken actionsdirectlycontraryto what theyhad been told to do, and
in each case the motivationsfordoing so appear to have been different.48But in no case is the argumentforinsubordinationirrefutable;
indeed, itis not clear thatpolice disobedience was much ofa problem
at all. In the firstinstance,a prisonerwrote to the king to reportthat
he had been handed over to a phylakitis
by a relativeformisplacing
records (p3up3Xpta,7) with which he had been entrusted(P.Enteux.
45Bauschatz (2005) 161-2.
Hierodouloi:see Scholl (1985). The archiphylakitis
in thistextis not given a title,
but it seems likelythatthe Leontiskoswho compelled the hierodouloi
to work was the
same man as the archiphylakitis
mentionedin P.Cair.Zen.II 59145.13-14 (?, 256 BCE).
On Leontiskos,archiphylakitis,
see Pros.Ptol.4583. On the Ptolemaic dioikte^s,
see n. 56,
below.
47 See below for
royaldecrees concerningpolice misbehavior.
48 Chrest.Wilck.
166 (Arsinoite,218 BCE);P.Enteux.84 (Ghoran,285-221 BCE);P.Hib.
I 34 (Oxyrhynchite,
243 BCE)and 73 (Oxyrhynchite,
244-243 BCE),both concerningthe
same instance.
46

29
had in turn handed the

84 [Ghoran, 285-221 BCE]). The phylakites
for detentionuntil the relative orpetitionerover to a desmophylax
dered his release. The ordershad since come,but the release had not.
of being
Instead,the petitionerhad been accused by the desmophylax
a criminal(KaKouply6v,20-1) and was moved to anotherprison in
anothervillage. Our understandingof the mechanicsof thissituation
is complicated by uncertaintyabout the position of the petitioner's
kinsman, who is nowhere given a title. Was he an officialwith
powers of arrest,or simplyan angryrelation?It seems odd thatthe
petitionerwould have neglected to stress that the offendingjailor
had disobeyed directordersfroman agent of the crown in a letterto
the king seeking release fromprison, if his relative was an official.
We cannot be certain,but it seems likelythatin this case the state's
interestsin detaininga suspected criminaltrumpedthose of his kin.
Though thevictimforgavetheoffender'stransgressionand requested
to haltthe police machinwas insufficient
his release,his intervention
the petitionerhad in
that
in
motion.
It
is
also
possible
ery already
factbeen cleared of the chargesbroughtagainst him by his relative,
but that additional unmentioned charges had since been brought,
makingcontinueddetentionnecessary.In eithercase, what we have
here may not be insubordination,but proper job performance.The
jailor was rightto expect instructionfroma superior and to ignore
theprisoner'skin.
In the second case, a police official(withouttitle,but probablya
complained thatthoughhe had arrestedand imprisoneda
phylakites)
an archiphylakites,
thief,
acting against commands fromthe
donkey
the
offenderbeforethe donkey could
had
released
village epistates,
243 BCE]
be returnedto its rightfulowner (P.Hib. I 34 [Oxyrhynchite,
and 73 [Oxyrhynchite,244-243 BCE]).49The epistateshad issued a
prostagmastatingthatthe thiefwas to be forcedeitherto returnthe
donkeyto its owner or to furnishthepriceoftheanimal,20 drachmas.
had freedthe man withouttaking account of
But the archiphylakites
and rethese instructions(P.Hib. I 34.4: oi00VvaXAyovTrorlodaPEvoS)
moved the donkey to his own home, where he was keeping it. As a
of theepistateshad come to nothingand theprakresult,theprostagma
had to be called in to extractpayment fromthe thief."s
tOridiotikon
Here thecase forinsubordinationis much stronger,thoughquestions
had reremain. We are nowhere informedthat the archiphylakitis
The editors of P.Hib. I 34 suggested thatthe complainantin this case, a certain
p. 173.
Antigonos,was a phylakites:
50The
is attestedin only threePtolemaic texts:P.Col. III 54.47-8
praktoridiotikon
243 BCE);P.Mich. I 71.1 (Arsinoite,
(Arsinoite?,250 BCE?);P.Hib. I 34.7 (Oxyrhynchite,
246-222 BCE).He was chargedwiththe extractionof certaintypesof debt,thoughlittle
more can be concluded about his post. See P.Hib. I 34 p. 176, n. ad 7, and P.Mich.I 71
p. 150,n. ad 1.
49

30
JOHN BAUSCHATZ
ceived or read the prostagmaof the epistates.It seems likelythat the

would have received word of the specificsof the case
archiphylakitis
in question,given theclose administrativetiesbetweenarchiphylakitai
and epistatai.51
Yet the documents reveal only that the complaining
officialhad knowledge of theepistatis'instructions.
Further,in this case the archiphylakitis
may have been unaware
of the prostagma.This official,the well-known Patron, was archiphylakitisof the entirelower toparchyof the Oxyrhynchitenome.52
The jailing and freeingof the donkeythiefhad takenplace in Sinary,
a village in thistoparchy.No indicationof theadministrativedomain
of the epistateswho issued the prostagmais provided, but given the
localized natureofhis orders,it seems likelythathe was in charge of
only the village.53As a consequence, his orders were perhaps distributed to the police officialsin Sinary,includingthe complainant,but
did not reach (and in any event would not have been binding on)
of the toparchy.Perhaps
higherofficials,includingthe archiphylakitis
Patron had discovered the thiefimprisoned with no record of the
reasons forhis imprisonmentand made the decision to freehim. It
may have been the case that the arrestingofficerdid not reveal his
intentionsto other officials(other than the commanding epistates,
thatis).54The subsequent detentionof the stolen donkey can also be
explained as proper police procedure. Police officialssometimes
temporarilydetained goods and animals in theirhomes and else51Bauschatz (2005) 47-9.
52
Patron (Pros.Ptol.4592 and 4711) appears in at least 13 texts:P.Hib. I 34 (Oxy243 BCE);73 (Oxyrhynchite,
244-243 BCE);II 236 (Oxyrhynchite,
ca. 250-240
rhynchite,
BCE);P.Tebt.III.1 744 and 745 (Tebtynis,245 BCE);746 and 747 (Tebtynis,243 BCE);748,
749 and 111.2937 (Tebtynis,ca. 243 BCE); 938 (Tebtynis,243 BCE); 939 (Tebtynis,242
249 BCE).For a discussion of these textssee P.Yale 1 35
BCE);P.Yale 1 35 (Oxyrhynchite,
pp. 95-7. Patronmay also be mentionedin P.Tebt.III.1 794 (Tebtynis,before210 BCE).
53 The
a certainDorion (Pros.Ptol.663), occurs only in P.Hib. I 34.2-3 and
epistates,
73.1 (no title).He is given no titleotherthanepistatisin eithertext.In cases where geographic domains are appended to the titlesof epistatai,the names of villages and cities
occur mostfrequently,
e.g. BGU III 1012.1 (Philadelphia, 170 BCE);VI 1244.38(Herakleopolite,225 BCE);1255.1 (AkanthonPolis, I BCE).Epistataiofmerides,
toparchies,nomes,
temples and other areas also occur. Merides:P.Enteux.73.9-10, 12 (?) (Magdola, 222
BCE) with P.Enteux.22.11, 14-15; 71.7, 11; and 95.9-13; P.K6ln III 140.1-3 (Arsinoite,
244-242 BCE?; 219-217 BCE?). Toparchies: e.g. O.Ashm.Shelt.42.1-2 (Thebes, II BCE);
P.Lond.VII 2188.222 (Hermonthis,148 BCE);P.Tor.Amen.7.1-2 (Thebes, 119-117 BCE).
Nomes: e.g. P.Giss. 108.11 (Pathyris,134 BCE);P.Ross.Georg.II 10.5-7 (Pathyris,88 BCE);
P.Tor.Choach.5.39-41 (Thebes, 110 BCE); temples: UPZ I 69,verso 1-4 (Memphis, 152
BCE); 108.1 (Memphis, 99 BCE). Other geographic regions: e.g. P.Lond. VII 2188.137
(Hermonthis,148 BCE): TOO [
] ETriToO T6TrOU
ITJr(LoTrTou);P.Petr.II 25, FrA.5-6
(Ptolemais Hormou, 226 BCE): ;ApTEPCOvo; I TOo iTorTaTOU TXCV KaTI TTiV XCwpav;
SB XIV 12093.8-9 (?, II BCE):TOV I T-rri
TV T6O1rrv
ETIrTaTTciV.
54 If the restoration
is right,the petitionerexplained thatthe thiefhad been arrested quietly (P.Hib. I 73.6-9: [iych oiv flou]lXIft
piv KaT& T'V [-rl ypa~qEiaO6V
0o[k Tir6
000
iTTrTOXTfiv] I aTrryayov [Tbv] Ka[XXAi]polPov E[is To iv
tvapu 8EOPCOIITTptov).

31
where afterconfiscationand beforetransportto theproperofficials.55

As it also seems unlikelythatthe criminalwould have explained the
the entire episode can be
details of his guilt to the archiphylakitis,
explained as an instanceof failureto communicate.Insubordination
was perhaps not a factor.
In a finalexample, an officialinvolved in statetransportof grain
had arresteda numthatan archiphylakitis
reportedto the epimele^tes
to
ber of shipbuildersand had ignored an order fromthe oikonomos
or the
release them, insisting that he hear firstfrom the dioike^tes
166 [Arsinoite,218 BCE]).56In this case, the
epimele^ts(Chrest.Wilck.
is complicated by issues of geographic
of
insubordination
question
was chief
and administrativedomain. Herakleides,thearchiphylakites,
of police of the Herakleopolite nome.57The shipbuilders,however,
were from the Arsinoite and had crossed into the Herakleopolite,
who had
had arrestedthem.The oikonomos
where the archiphylakites
official."
This
raises
theissue
Arsinoite
their
release
was
an
requested
of whetherthe chain of command was bound by geography.Could
an epistatesin the Hermopolitenome give ordersto an archiphylakites
in the Oxyrhynchite?It seems likely that in this case, at least, the
were not binding on the Herakleoordersof the Arsinoiteoikonomos
due
their
different
to
operationalspheres,despite
politearchiphylakitis
the fact that oikonomoiwere accustomed to giving orders to archiThis episode thereforemay provide a perfectexample of a
phylakitai.
policeman following the regular chain of command, and does not
furnishevidence for insubordinationor corruptionamong law enforcementofficials.
The examples cited above do not prove conclusivelythatdisobedience was widespread among the Ptolemaicpolice,but theydo raise
questions about the nature of communicationamong these officials.
55
E.g. P.Cair.Zen.III 59475 (Philadelphia,III BCE),in which a numberofphylakitai
found and locked up a runaway mare; P.Petr.III 32,G (Sebennytos?,217 BCE),where
some cows found grazing on their
cowherds attemptedto drive offto the phylakitai
pasturage; P.Tebt.III.1 729 (Tebtynis,II BCE),in which an official(?) of unknownrank
and
gathereda numberof cows and sheep, handed themover to the village phylakitai
thenenclosed themin a temple.
56 The dioike^ts
was one of the chiefcivil and financialofficialsof the Ptolemaic
state:Berneker(1935) 80-9; Thomas (1978). Therewere close tiesbetweenthePtolemaic
forinstance,
police and officialschargedwith supervisionof the economy. Oikonomoi,
sometimesgave instructionsto police officersconcerningmattersoffiscalmalfeasance:
166 (Arsinoite,218 BCE); P.Heid. VI 362 (Herakleopolite,226 BCE) with
Chrest.Wilck.
III BCE)with
Pros.Ptol.1047 and P.Heid. VI p. 9 n. ad 2; VII 393 (Arsinoite/Memphite,
Pros.Ptol.1041a, Pros.Ptol.4562 with add., and P.Heid. VII pp. 42-4. Epimeletai,
too, had
regular contact with the police: e.g. P.Petr. II 1 (Arsinoite,III BCE); P.Tebt.III.1 731
(Tebtynis/IbionEikosipentarouron,153-152 or 142-141 BCE?);741 (Tebtynis,187-186
BCE). For more on the relationshipbetween Ptolemaic financialofficialsand police
see Bauschatz (2005) 152-8.
officers(especiallyarchiphylakitai),
7 Herakleides: Pros.Ptol.4577.
58 He was also named Herakleides: Pros.Ptol.1046.

32
JOHN BAUSCHATZ
Higher officerscommunicatedwithpolice in villages throughletters

and officialnotifications,and doubtless verballyas well. Such communication could prove problematic from time to time. It was
importantto informas many people as possible when carryingout
police business, so as to avoid conflictwith officialswho had not
been briefedon regional procedure. It was also essential to respect
the bounds of one's occupational domain when giving orders to
subordinates, as well as to know who these subordinates were.
When police were un- or ill-informed,mistakes were sometimes
made; but instances of human error or breakdowns in communication,however grievous,are not evidence of corruption.
Thus far, we have focused on individual instances of alleged
police misbehavior,primarilythosecontainedin petitions.Our investigationhas revealed that corruptionwas minimal at best. We will
now considera handfulof decrees and circularsfromthe sovereigns
that also suggest that police officialsoccasionally misbehaved. Yet
we should not be too quick to conclude thatthe prohibitionsagainst
unlawful requisitionsand detentionsfound in royal edicts reflected
the realityof police corruptionin Ptolemaic Egypt.Though the king
and queen routinelyvisitedthe ch6raforrounds of inspectionand to
dispense justice, they remained for the most part in Alexandria,
leaving the administrationof the countrysideto governmentagents
The decrees theyissued concerning
scatteredthroughoutthe ch6ra.59
police abuses and corruptionwere likelyformulatedfromdata contained in reportsand petitionsreceived by officials,as opposed to
eyewitnesstestimonyfromthe officersthemselves.The resultwas a
decidedly incompleteview of life in the ch6ra,at two full removes
fromreality.In this respect at least, the data for police corruption
provided by the decrees is even more suspect than thatrenderedby
petitions.But it was not necessarilythe case thatthe king and queen
issued decrees as responses to reportsof corruption.The sovereigns
may have sought to be proscriptive,so as to stem the tide of potential wrongdoing by outlawing the behaviors considered most
likelyto occur or most deleterious to the functioningof the state.60
59 Sovereignsin the countryside:e.g. PSI IV 354 (Philadelphia, 254 BCE),instructions forpreparationsforan impendingvisit fromthe king;P.Tebt.I 116, verso 56-8
ofthe basilikosgram(Kerkeosiris?,II BCE),a recordof paymentsmade to the machimoi
mateusat the time of the king's visit; UPZ I 109 (Memphis, 98 BCE),in which a man
noted thata certainSimon had attendedan audience ofthe king.
60 It is impossible to tell fromthe documentsthemselveswhethertheyaccurately
reflectedthe state of life in Ptolemaic Egypt at the time of their composition and
likewise whetherthey addressed contemporaryproblems. Many ancient royal proclamations, fromthe Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1750 BCE) to the Digest of Justinian
(530-3 CE), were little more than collections of court decisions and inheritedlegal
knowledge. The legal scholarswho composed themgenerallyaimed forcompleteness,
oftenat the expense of relevance and contemporaneity.One must not overlook the
possibilitythatthe same was trueof much of the Ptolemaicmaterial.

33
Yet on this view, too, the decrees reflecta hypotheticalsociety of

governmentlawbreakers, not real life in the ch6ra.Though royal
proclamationsprobably reveal some truth,the amount of legal fiction theycontainis impossible to determine.It seems best to accept
that these documents provide a kernel of valuable informationon
officialmisbehavior,but are imperfectindicatorsof police crimein
PtolemaicEgypt.
A firstexample suggests that financial malfeasance was occaand theirsuperiors(C.Ord.Ptol.2
sionally a problem among phylakitai
53 [Kerkeosiris?,118 BCE]). In this decree the sovereigns forbade
illegal searches at phylakai(22-7) and the confiscationof revenues
for personal profitby archiphylakitai,
and others
epistataiphylakito^n
(138-46), and outlawed arrestsby any officialsforpersonal reasons
(255-64).61In the same document they also remittedthe penalties
who had perpetratedfraud in conpreviouslyassigned to phylakitai
with
the
annual
(188-92).62The textsuggests
junction
genematophylakia
thatthe submissionof fraudulentgrainaccounts,the theftofgovernmentproduce and revenueand arbitraryarrestwere among the most
common abuses by police officials.Additional decrees, as well as a
number of petitions already considered, show that allegations of
such misbehaviorwere sometimes leveled against police officers.63
But decrees of this sort,especially those containingroyal amnesties,
were issued regularlyat thebeginningof new reignsor afterperiods
of strifethroughoutthe Ptolemaic period.64How much faithcan we
place in what appears to be, forthe mostpart,a formulaicdocument?
Withoutadditional evidence, we cannot conclude that the textwas
prepared as a response to reportsof widespread wrongdoing.The
slim evidence frompetitionsand othersources forcrooked police in
the choraprovides littlefurthersupport.
Here the sovA second decree presentsinterpretivedifficulties.
to avoid
at
a
aimed
highertarget,orderingepistataiphylakit6n
ereigns
61
Phylakaiwere multi-purposebuildings in which a numberof police and financial officials,as well as prisoners,mightbe found:Bauschatz (2005) 117-21.
62 Gendmatophylakia:
n. 32, above.
63 On petitionsconcerningsuch matters,see above. Decrees: C.Ord.Ptol.2
55.10-14
(Tebtynis,ca. 118 BCE), a decree that prohibiteda broad spectrumof officialsfrom
carryingout arbitraryimprisonments;C.Ord.Ptol.234 (Oxyrhynchus?,186 BCE; with
(as well as archiphylakitai
supplementsfromP.KolnVII 313), which released phylakitai
frompunishmentforthe confiscationof crown assets (i.25-7)
and epistataiphylakit6n)
and forbadeofficials(among these epistatai)frommaking arrestsforpersonal reasons
(ii.10-20).
64 See P.Kiln VII 313 pp. 64-5 n. 7 fora list of Ptolemaic amnestydecrees and
Smith(1968) on pharaonic antecedents.PtolemyVIII EuergetesII (ruled 170-116 BCE)
seems to have issued a number of such edicts: C.Ord.Ptol.241-2 (145-144 BCE);43 (a
copy from135-134 BCEof an original from145-144 BCE);53 (118 BCE); 53bis (partial
copy of 53, ca. 100 BCE);53ter(partial copy of 53, after113 BCE);54 (ca. 118 BCE);55 (ca.
118 BCE).

JOHN BAUSCHATZ
34
arbitraryjudicial decisions and prescribingguidelines forhandling

specifictypes of cases (C.Ord.Ptol.230-1 [?, 183 BCE]).In one section,
were told to use theirown judgment when punepistataiphylakiton
ishingthose who broughtsuits withoutlegal basis, but to send those
who sued out of a desire for personal profit to the sovereigns
were to be
immediately(31.11-14). Noncompliantepistataiphylakiton
This
decree
demonstrates
that
to
(30.3-6).
subject royal punishment
officialabuses were not limited to the lowest rungs of the police
hierarchy,or at least thatthe king and queen understood the importance of including police administratorsin their prohibitions.But
how realisticare the document's mandates?Would an epistatisphylakitdnreceiving this decree really have been able to differentiate
I
between litigantswho made groundless claims (31.11-12: ToS
t~iv
avayOVTaS TIVas) and those suing because
EiKiitK[a]i aTrpOOKETrTC05
of personal differencesor seeking to commitextortion(31.13: T[oU]5
8E
8tacpopa5ifoECYtoIO0
X&ptv)?Would therealways have been a clear
The impressioncreatedis thatthe decree was intendedto
difference?
prevent frivolous lawsuits from tying up the royal court. Yet the
Epistataiphylalanguage of the documentdoes not permitcertainty.65
kit6nwere advised to take one type of action with regardto litigants
making accusations in name, but to send those who brought suits
based on suspicions to the sovereigns.66If a quarrel arose against
certainindividuals who were not present,those individuals (or the
so
quarrelers?)were to be transported(?) by the eistates phylakitdn
thatno wrongdoingcould occurbeforethetrial.67
A thirddecree, a collectionof police regulations,sheds lighton
(P.Hib. II 198 [Arsinopunishmentsassigned to delinquentphylakitai
If a phylakitis
ite?,after242 BCE]).68
neglectedto hand over a runaway
rowerfromtheroyalfleet,he was to be sentto theships.69A phylakites
who did not arresta thiefwas subject to the same fine as the thief
65 The remainderof the decree (31.14-21) containsadditional

provisionsthat are
difficult
to understandowing to lacunae.
66 31.14-17:
; T']
T6V aOTObV86Tp6TrOVKal I [TOVi5
'TpGoayyE'ia5
6v61la[T]OSTa5
I
rrotoupEVouSTOV I [ca. 11 T]CSv BE [K]a0' '[Tir6]votav
TroIEtIcOE
8186VTC.V
rra]paXpi?[p]a.
67 31.19faxv E8'
pil
E5 TtvaS rrap6vTaS
6ptloPbSI
yEvrnT[at
I [ca. 15]
S
[KaTaITTOl'rvi
E TOOS
'va pAil
av6pcurr[o]us,
rrp6KpioEcoS
KaKoUpy[ia]SyvoCrVTal.
68On thisdecree,see Iunderewicz (1965); Lewis (1968); Bagnall (1969); Bauschatz
(2005)110-11,127and144.
86-92: KaTx
Ti' aTa-i [8E Kai TO]iS va[M]lTaS TOt; Ti~V XapaKTTipa EXOVTas
[ca. 9] I K TOO VOCUTtKOV
6] I 0oo t'vv
0 qC)OXaKiTaI v[ i [ ]5pu
T]o0s5
T
,a[ca.
TVI ] IpUaKcx
Exv 8A
[Cootv]' Xa)otv iTrravayfTCoaaV
[TJo5
Trp65
E]oYTVlKOTaKTS
V"-voXot Ifi
8'
I
a(a[TOi]
TlTavaydy[alo]tv .EEXEYXOVTES
a'-TOOTEXXEO0C,)OGaV TTaXva.0."
1Ti
p
69
Ka[i
EoTCAoaVK[ai oil I rTOBEX6sIEvot

TO'5 VaTTa[S]
.apa Paot[]ltKift.

35
and was perhaps to be judged by the same judges.70The language of

the decree and its penalties are clear. The circumstancesof its
promulgation,however, are not. In contrastto the previous two
examples, thereis no indicationthat the document was issued as a
governmentresponse to reports of widespread lawlessness. The
talionic punishmentspecified for certainwrongdoers suggests that
the decree was in fact a set of guidelines for dealing with hypotheticalfutureoffensesbased on accumulated legal knowledge. It
perhaps provides evidence not of police misbehavior,but of the
suspicion thatsuch misbehaviormightoccur.71
Overall, police misbehaviorin Ptolemaic Egypt seems to have
been minimal.Law enforcementofficialsoccasionally employed violence in the executionof police business,but therough handlingthat
occurred was not always unwarranted.True, police were occasionally slow to act on officialorders,even to the point of inaction.This
was clearlyan issue of concernto supervisors,as suggested by the
fact that commanding officerssometimes added exhortationsand
threatsto the ends of their writteninstructionsas a preventative
measure to ensure thatpolice business was done in a timelymanner.
But therewas only so much thatcould be done to ensure thatoffenders were arrested,debts collected and crimessolved as quickly as
possible. The law enforcementmachineryof Ptolemaic Egypt was
slowed by the delays involved in relaying instructionsfrom one
officialto the next. Much depended on the expeditious writing,
deliveryand processing of small scraps of papyrus. In spite of these
roadblocks, much (if not most) police business seems to have been
manner.
completedin a timelyand satisfactory
Though police officersseem rarelyto have opposed directorders
from their superiors, they did break the law from time to time.
Abuses rangingfromviolence and extortionto arbitraryarrestand
detention to judicial bias and the like occurred. Punishmentwas
occasionally administeredby commanding officersin cases where
proofof wrongdoingwas offered.For theirpart,the Ptolemiesmay
have responded to reports of misbehavior with decrees banning
illegal acts among police. These were stopgap measures, to be sure,
7092-100:
I 8' EoTWOav di TE
Kal Oi XOtTO[i K]aKoOpyOL Kmal
XTaiOTaI
oi paotKt[Koi] I6ycby[tlot]
vaOTaI TraVTaX66EV Kai IlT0Ei[5 alJ]To s apaltpEiloeC I i iv[o]XoS
aVr;'rT[] 6 KoKwO[CV] 6 [ ]pEVOS TO;[S] axJTOiS"IEThT[IIPOILOT Kai 6
'X[rlO]Tj
il
Ta
I
oTr.6 TTI[Vva]'Ov
a[G'T6 i K i ToBEX6jAEVO[l
'a5
Kam
Ti"
KoT
XAEo[b]r[cS]"
I Arlt[TI]v
(?)
KaKopyou
if a rTOS orrr[oEX6E]vot Ev[oXoOt
T[k.)V]
"ap6
EC]ITC[oa]V
Tois aQrTOiS TT'riTlpot[]K[aOrTTEp ca. ?I I yEy[pal-rTat.
71 A finaldecree (P.Mil.Congr.XVII p. 29.10-13 [?, 100-99 BCE])seems to suggest

thatpotamophylakes
had been misbehaving,but the nature of theirabuses is obscured
I
ca. ?] ITOTapoqAXaKaS
TO;
by lacuna:
&ijXXou[Sca. ?] I VTaS
-1po[OTETaXact
KlK
K
ai
EOw TOO VOiV dOUK[Oq)pVTITOU Kmi
VETrrh]irTrTOUSElval. On
aKTflyopTrTOU5
56.
see Bauschatz (2005)

potamophylakes,

36
JOHN BAUSCHATZ
but also the strongeststeps the state could take. The Ptolemies did
not exerttightcontrolover the law enforcementsystemthat supervised the towns and villages of the Egyptian ch6ra;rather,they
handed over the responsibilityfor village police work to village
authorities.As a result,the Ptolemieseffectively
removedthemselves
and theiragentsfromthe immediatesupervisionof these authorities.
That the police sometimes misbehaved should thus not come as a
surprise.If power corrupts,thehigh degree of autonomyinvestedin
the Ptolemaic police by theirsuperiors must have been responsible
forsome degree of officialwrongdoing.
The question is how much. In determiningthe extent of this
wrongdoing,we should keep in mind thatthe bulk of the evidence
forthe misbehaviorof police officialscomes frompersonal accounts,
usually frompeople with axes to grind. What appeared an act of
abuse to one man may legitimatelyhave appeared a necessaryelement of his job to another.Home invasions and confiscationswere
accepted procedurefortherecoveryof governmentdebts,as was imprisonment.These operationsoccasionallyinvolved violence against
uncooperative villagers and could easily be portrayedby "victims"
as instancesof abuse or arbitrarybehavior. As with so much of the
of
papyrological evidence forlifein Ptolemaic Egypt,interpretation
the sources is of the utmostimportance.Withoutthe benefitof defensematerialsfromthe police officialsunder attack,it is unwise to
conclude thatevery instance of police abuse detailed in petitionsto
governmentofficialswas genuine. A clear pictureof the extentof the
problem of police abuse of the subject population is thus perhaps
unattainable.
We can say, then,thatcorruptiondid exist.But who would have
thoughtotherwise?The preponderanceof the evidence reveals that
the law enforcementmachineryof Ptolemaic Egypt was effective,
efficientand reliable. Villagers used the services it provided, and it
served the same villagerswell. Though theyoccasionallycomplained
of rough handling by police and otherunfairpractices-sometimes
probably rightly, sometimes probably not-the overwhelming
impressionis thatthe Ptolemaic populace trustedthe police system.
And while it is clear that communicationssometimesbroke down
and police made mistakes,the data do not suggest that police corruptionwas widespread. This suggests thatour views on corruption
in the other administrativespheres of Ptolemaic Egypt may need
revision.If the Ptolemaic police systemwas characterizedby a high
degree of integrity,what are we to thinkof the civil, militaryand
financial branches of government?Did the nature of the work in
these departmentsallow formore misbehavior?Did these positions
attracta certain unscrupulous subset of the population? Or have
scholars overestimatedthe extentof officialabuse in the financial,

37
militaryand civil spheres of the Ptolemaic state? A reevaluation of

the evidence is in order.Though the countrysidemay have harbored
the occasional crooked magistrate,the sands of PtolemaicEgyptmay
nothave been so lawless afterall.
JOHNBAUSCHATZ
TheUniversity
ofArizona
WORKSCITED
Alston,R. 1994."Violenceand SocialControlin RomanEgypt."In Proceedings of the20thInternational

CongressofPapyrologists,
Copenhagen,23-29
1992,editedbyA. Biilow-Jacobsen,
August,
pp. 517-21.Copenhagen.
Ambaglio,D. 1987."Tensionietnichee socialinella ch6ratolemaica."Studi
2: 129-62.
ellenistici
Bagnall,R.S.1969."SomeNotesonP.Hib.198."BASP6: 73-118.
andPrivateViolenceinRomanEgypt."BASP26:201-16.
-. 1989."Official
Baldwin,B. 1963."Crimeand Criminalsin Graeco-Roman
Egypt."Aegyptus
43: 256-63.
in PtolemaicEgypt.
Bauschatz, J. 2005. Policingthe Ch6ra: Law Enforcement
Diss. Duke.
Zeit. Ein Beitragzum

Bengtson,H. 1964-67. Die Strategiein derhellenistischen
antikenStaatsrecht,2
3 vols.Munich.
im griechischen
RechtAgyptens.
Berneker,E. 1935. Die Sondergerichtsbarkeit
Munich.
Bevan, E. 1968. The House ofPtolemy.A Historyof EgyptunderthePtolemaic

Dynasty.Chicago.
de l'Egypte
Bouch&-Leclercq,A. 1963.Histoiredes Lagides,vol.4: Les institutions
II.
Paris.
ptolemaYque
Clarysse,W. and K. Vandorpe. 1995. Zenon,un hommed'affaires
grech l'ombre
translated
despyramides,
byW. Clarysseand S. Heral.Leuven.
D. 1978."The Good Officialof PtolemaicEgypt."In Das ptoleCrawford,
miiischeAgypten.Aktendes internationalen
Symposions27.-29. September
1976 in Berlin,editedby H. Maehlerand V.M. Strocka,pp. 195-202.

Mainz.
of Some Crimesin RomanEgypt."
Davies, R.W. 1973."The Investigation
AncSoc4: 199-212.
di BitontoKasser,A. 1967."Le petizionial re.Studiosul formulario."

Aegyptus47: 5-57.
nelperiodotolemaico.Studiosul for. 1968."Le petizioniai funzionari

mulario."Aegyptus48: 53-107.
di petizionidel periodotolemaico.Studiosul for. 1976."Frammenti
mulario."Aegyptus56: 109-43.
administratione
qualisfueritaetate
Engers,M. 1909. De Aegyptiarum
KWJM&VN
Lagidarum.Groningen.
in PtolemaicEgypt.Dutch Monographs on AnGoudriaan, K. 1988. Ethnicity
5. Amsterdam.
cientHistoryand Archaeology
Diss.
Handrock, P. 1967. DienstlicheWeisungenin denPapyriderPtolemiierzeit.
Cologne.

38
JOHN BAUSCHATZ
dans l'Egypteptolema'que.Recherches
sur
Helmis, A. 1986. Crimeet chatiment
d'un moddle
l'autonomie
penal.Diss. Paris (Nanterre).
zur IOberwachungder Wiistengrenzen
Hennig, D. 2003. "Sicherheitskrifte
und Karawanenwege im ptolemiischenAgypten."Chiron33: 145-74.
Hobson, D.W. 1993. "The Impactof Law on Village Lifein Roman Egypt."In
Law, Politicsand Societyin theAncientMediterranean
World,edited by B.
Halpern and D.W. Hobson, pp. 193-219. Sheffield.
Hohlwein,N. 1969.Le Strategedu nome.2
PapyrologicaBruxellensia9. Brussels.
Hombert,M. and C. Preaux. 1942. "Recherchessur le prosangelma
B l'apoque
ptolemaique." CE 17: 259-86.
in Grieks-Romeins
Kool, P. 1954. Die Phylakieten
Egypt.Amsterdam.
Kunderewicz,C. 1965. "Ad Papyrus Hibeh 198." JJP15: 139-43.
Lavigne, E. 1945. De epistatesvan hetDorp in Ptolemaeisch
Egypte.Studia Hellenistica3. Louvain.
militaires
de l'Egyptesous les Lagides.Paris.
Lesquier,J.1911.Les institutions
Lewis, N. 1968."P.Hibeh,198 on RecapturingFugitiveSoldiers."AJP89: 465-9.
Marcone, A. 1999. "La privationde libertedans l'Egypte greco-romaine."In
Carcer:prisonet privationde libertddans l'antiquiteclassique.Actesdu colloque de Strasbourg(5 et 6 dicembre1997), edited by C. BertrandDagenbach, A. Chauvot,M. Matterand J.-M.Salamito,pp. 89-98. Paris.
Mooren, L. 1984. "On the Jurisdictionof the Nome Strategoiin Ptolemaic
di Papirologia(Napoli,19Egypt."In AttidelXVII CongressoInternazionale
26 maggio1983). 3 vols., pp. 1217-25. Naples.
and theMachimoi."In ProceedOates, J.1994. "Axapes, a BasilikosGrammateus
23-29
ings of the20th International
CongressofPapyrologists,
Copenhagen,
August,1992,edited by A. Btilow-Jacobsen,
pp. 588-92. Copenhagen.
, R.S. Bagnall, S.J.Clackson, A.A. O'Brien, J.D. Sosin, T.G. Wilfongand
K.A. Worp. October,2006. Checklistof Greek,Latin,Demoticand Coptic
Papyri,Ostracaand Tablets:
/papyrus/texts/clist.html.
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu
Orrieux,C. 1983. Les Papyrusde Zenon: l'horizond'un grecen Egypteau IIIf
siecleavantJ.C.Paris.
etle destingrec.Paris.
-. 1985. Zenonde Caunos,parepidemos,
Parca, M. 1985. "Prosangelmata
ptolemafques:une mise a jour." CE 60: 240-7.
Peremans,W. 1982. "Die Amtsmissbrducheim ptolemiischenAgypten."In
imAltertum:
KonstanzerSymposion,
Oktober1979,edited by W.
Korruption
Schuller,pp. 103-33. Munich.
Pestman,P. 1981.A GuidetotheZenonArchive.2 vols. PapyrologicaLugdunoBatava 21. Leiden.
M. 1922. A LargeEstatein Egyptin theThirdCenturyBC:A Study
Rostovtzeff,
in EconomicHistory.University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social
Sciences and History6. Madison.
Scholl,R. 1985. "' Ep68ouVAoim griechisch-rbmischen
Agypten."Historia34:
466-92.
Smith,H.S. 1968. "A Note on Amnesty."JEA54: 209-14.
Taubenschlag,R. 1959. "L'emprisonnementdans le droitgreco-egyptien."In
OperaMinora2, pp. 713-19. Warsaw.
Thomas, J.D. 1978. "Aspects of the Ptolemaic Civil Service: The Dioiketes
and the Nomarch." In Das ptolemdische
Agypten.Aktendes internationalen

39
1976 in Berlin,edited by H. Maehler and

Symposions27.-29. September
V.M. Strocka,pp. 187-94. Mainz.
Thompson, D. 1997. "Policing the Ptolemaic Countryside."In Aktendes 21.
Internationalen
Berlin,13.-19. 8. 1995, edited by
Papyrologenkongresses,
B. Kramer,W. Luppe, H. Maehler and G. Poethke. 2 vols. Archiv ffir
Papyrusforschungund verwandte Gebiete Beiheft3, pp. 961-6. Stuttgartand Leipzig.
Van 't Dack, E. 1948. "Les strategesdans les Archives d' Assiout." In Studia
Hellenistica5, edited by L. Cerfaux and W. Peremans,pp. 45-55. Paris
and Leiden.
. 1949. "Recherchessur l'administrationdu nome dans la Thebaide au
tempsdes Lagides." Aegyptus29: 3-44.
. 1951. Ptolemaica.Leuven.
. 1989. "L'dpistateArtemOn:Un des fonctionnaires
Lagides TpOKa6rC'LEVOl
Tri Xc'ppac."AncSoc20: 147-58.
derPtolemder.2
Munich.
Wolff,H. 1970. Das Justizwesen


Bauschatz - Police Corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bauschatz - Police Corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Strong Arm of the Law?

Police Corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

THE STRONG ARM OF THE LAW?

September14, 109 BCE,a cobblernamed Petermouthisfrom

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

gated crimes (visiting crime scenes, examining evidence, sealing

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

them a kind of monopoly on violence.6Brutalitybetween villagers

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

two typesofpolice abuses in thisessay. First,I will examineinstances

Egyptbecause of the many similaritiesbetween the duties of the officialsso identified

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

part, petitionersseem to have known whom to contactfor specific

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTIONIN PTOLEMAICEGYPT

had been extorting

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

Unjustarrestscould involvephysicalabuse, oftenoutlinedin grim

governmentor do not specifythe titlesor administrativedomains of the offending

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

petition,when a launderer disputed payment by an epistatesfor a

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

On imprisonmentin PtolemaicEgypt,see Taubenschlag (1959); H6lmis (1986);

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

to submit graphic accounts of events. But though they oftenproclaimed theirinnocence,theyrarelydemonstratedconclusivelythat

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

corruptofficials;many were likely legitimate,if sometimesviolent,

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

166 [Arsinoite,218 BCE]).34Sometimes petitionersap(Chrest.Wilck.

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

officialinaction(SB XVI12468 [Arsinoite?,III BCE]).A man en routeto

38 The officialpetitionedin this case is nowhere given a title.Machimoi:scholaris extensive;see Goudriaan

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

We are especially well-informedabout the activitiesof a certain

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

appear forduty,in spite ofhaving sworn theiroaths of office(P.Tebt.

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

had in turn handed the

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

ceived or read the prostagmaof the epistates.It seems likelythat the

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

where afterconfiscationand beforetransportto theproperofficials.55

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

Higher officerscommunicatedwithpolice in villages throughletters

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

Yet on this view, too, the decrees reflecta hypotheticalsociety of

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

arbitraryjudicial decisions and prescribingguidelines forhandling

65 The remainderof the decree (31.14-21) containsadditional

EoTCAoaVK[ai oil I rTOBEX6sIEvot

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AM

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT