Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf

8/10/2019 Bauschatz_police corruption in Ptolemaic egypt.pdf

1/28

The Strong Arm of the Law? Police Corruption in Ptolemaic EgyptAuthor(s): John BauschatzSource: The Classical Journal, Vol. 103, No. 1 (Oct. - Nov., 2007), pp. 13-39Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and SouthStable 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 [email protected].

.

The Classical Association of the Middle West and Southis 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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camwshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30038657?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30038657?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camws


2/28

THE

STRONG

ARM OF THE LAW?

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC

EGYPT*

Abstract: iven

he road

owers ranted

ts

officers,

he tolemaicaw

enforcement

system ught

o

have been

plaguedby

official

buses.

Yet there re

few

ndications

that

police

misbehavior as

a

serious

problem.

illagers omplained

bout

police

misbehavior,

ut

many

omplaints

re

suspect,

ighlighting

abuses that ook ike

proper rocedure,ndthe act hat uchcomplaints ere ftenent opolice fficials

suggests

hat

eople

rusted hem.

nsubordination

n the

anks eems

o

havebeen

uncommon;

eprimands

o

subordinates

rompolice

administrators

re

few;

and

government

irculars nd decrees

oncerning

orruption

re

often

oo

vague

to

provideirm

onclusionsbout he xtent

reven he

ypes f

police

wrongdoing.

O

n

eptember

14,

109

BCE,

cobblernamed

Petermouthis

rom

the

Egyptian

village

of

Oxyrhyncha

petitioned

the

strategos

Ptolemaios

concerning

a brazen instance of officialabuse:

Dionysios,

the

ocal

police chief,

ad

come

to town

with

a number

of

accomplices

and set

upon

Petermouthis'

workshop

P.Coll.

Youtie 16

[Arsinoite,

09

BCE?]).'

The offenders

rabbed

the cobbler

and

drag-

ged

him

through

the streets

with

great

cruelty, nly releasing

him

after

hey

had

taken four ilver

drachmas,

1300 bronze

drachmas

nd

even the shirt

offhis back.

They

also

compelled

anotherman

to

ar-

range

an additional

payment

of 44

silver

drachmas

in

Petermouthis'

name)

at

the

bank. Not

wanting

these acts to

go unpunished,

Peter-

mouthis sked Ptolemaios

that he

offenders e

transported

o another

official,

robably

for

reprimand.

Unfortunately,

t this

point

in the

narrative he documentbreaksoff, long with ourknowledgeof 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

from ections of the

sixth

chapter

f

my

dissertation

Bauschatz

2005) 177-211).

would

like

to

thank .

Douglas

Olson and the

two

anonymous

readers at

The

Classical

Journal

or heir

many helpful

comments,

which

greatly mproved

the

piece,

and

Josh

osin for

his invaluable feed-

back on

an earlier

version

of

the

text. would also

like

to

thank

Swarthmore

College

for

faculty

ummer

research

ward

that

made

much

of

my

research

possible.

SAbbreviations

or ditions

of

papyri

are cited

after

Oates,

Bagnall,

et al.

(2006).

The

Heidelberger

Gesamtverzeichnis er

griechischen

Papyrusurkunden

Agyptens

(www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de

~gv0/gvz.html)

provides

dates

and

provenances

for

papyri,

where

possible.

On the

Ptolemaic

stratigos

nd

his

subordinates,

ee Van 't

Dack

(1948);

Bengtson

(1964-7)

vol.

3;

Hohlwein

(1969);

Mooren

(1984).

See

n.

4,

below,

formore on

police

chiefs

archiphylakitai).

THE

CLASSICAL

JOURNAL

103.1

2007)

13-39

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:05:34 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/28

14

JOHN

BAUSCHATZ

Documents

like Petermouthis'

petition suggest

that the

Ptole-

maic chorawas rifewith criminals nd crookedcops. Complaintsof

police

misbehavior re well known:

unnecessary

iolence n

searches,

seizures and

investigations;

unauthorized

requisitions

of

goods;

arbitrary

etention and

denial of

release;

and mistreatment t

tax

time. Administrative

lip-ups

were

occasionally

a

problem

for

aw

enforcement

fficials,

nd insubordination

mong

officers

ometimes

affected

olice

work. Even

the

king

and

queen

of

Egypt

addressed

the

issue

of

corrupt

aw

enforcement

ractices

from ime to

time

n

royal

decrees. But

surprisingly, nly

a few scholarshave

approached

the

subject

of official

orruption

n

Ptolemaic

Egypt.2

he consensus

is a verygeneralone: thatthePtolemaicadministration as plagued

by corruption,

with aw enforcement o

exception.

But the evidence

for this claim is

complex

and more limited than one

might

have

thought.

Occasional abuses

may

have

occurred,

ut

nothing

uggests

that

a culture of

corruption

xisted

among

the officer

orps.

In this

paper

I

argue

that

corruption

within the ranks of the

Ptolemaic

police system

was minimal nd

that he

system

was for he

most

part

reliableand effective.

Given

the

wide

distribution f the

Ptolemaic

police

system

nd

the

greatautonomy

of

its

officers,

his is

surprising.

A

broad

spec-trum of officialsfromdifferent

pheres

policed

the

countryside.3

Military

nd

security ersonnel

provided

some

police

protection,

ut

the

lion's

share of law enforcement ell to the

phylakitai,

upervised

by archiphylakitai

essentiallypolice

chiefs)

n

the towns and

villages

of the

ch6ra

and

by epistatai

hylakit6npolice

commissionersof

a

sort)

at the

nome

level.4

The

phylakitai

nd their

upervisors

were

the

natural

points

of

contact orvictims f

crimes,

s well as for

central

governmentooking

o

enforce

aw

and order

n

the

Egyptian

ountry-

side.

These officials

erformed

number

of

functions.

hey

investi-

2

On

official

orruption

n

Ptolemaic

Egypt,

ee Crawford

1978);

Peremans

1982).

On official

orruption

nd 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

survey

of

police

corruption

n the

Roman

province

of

Egypt

has

appeared.

3

Bauschatz

(2005)

provides

the most

recent

nd

comprehensive

iscussion

of

po-

lice and

police

work n

Ptolemaic

Egypt.

ee also

Lesquier

1911) 260-4;

Berneker

1935)

78-9;

Kool

(1954);

Bouche-Leclercq

1963)

56-62;

Helmis

(1986);

Thompson

1997).

4

Phylakitai:

esquier

(1911)

261-2;

Kool

(1954);

Bevan

(1968)

163-5;

Thompson

(1997) 962-5;

Bauschatz

(2005)

27-34;

Chrest.Wilck.

pp.

411-16;

P.Tebt. 5

pp.

51 n.

ad

188, 550-1; P.Hib. II 198 pp. 97-104. Archiphylakitai:ngers 1909) 73-85; Kool (1954)

43-66;

Handrock

(1967)

49-50,

118-19;

Bauschatz

(2005) 34-9; O.Oslo

2

p.

13

with n.

Epistatai

hylakit6n:

an

't

Dack

(1949)

40-4;

Kool

(1954) 67-85;

Bauschatz

2005) 38-46;

P.Hamb. V 272

pp.

175-6 n.

ad

2.

For a brief

urvey

of officials rom

ther

pheres

of

the Ptolemaic

dministration ith

police

powers,

see Bauschatz

2005) 52-61;

for

olic-

ing

and

security

long

the borders and

trade routes of the

Ptolemaic

empire,

Hennig

(2003).



4/28

POLICE CORRUPTION

IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT 15

gated

crimes

(visiting

crime

scenes,

examining

evidence,

sealing

homes,questioningwitnesses and confiscating roperty), rocessed

offenders

arresting,

etaining

nd

prosecuting), rovided

protection

(guarding

state

infrastructures well as

private

individuals),

and

even collected

ax

revenue for

he central

overnment.5

Law

enforcement

machinery

xtended

throughout

he

Egyptian

ch6ra

nd was

present

t

every

administrative

evel,

from he

village

to the nome.

The roadblocks

to the

successful

completion

of

police

business

occurring

n

such a

wide-ranging ystem

ught

to have cre-

ated

an

environment n which certain

types

of

corruption

could

flourish.

Breakdowns

in

communication etween officers

n

remote

regions hould have been responsibleformuch ofthis.Police orders

were

generally

written n

papyrus

and

sent,

via

desertroads connec-

ting

small

settlements,

hrough

he

agency

of etter arriers r

police

officers,

o

officials

n

other administrative

reas.

Recipients

were

oftennot addressed

by

title nd

were sometimes dentified

nly by

their

first

ame

and

perhaps

a

patronymic.

Given

these

constraints,

we

might

expect delays

and

errors. n

addition,

time

was

of the

essence

forboth

the

completion

of

police

business and the

delivery

of commands.

On

the

surface,

he Ptolemaic

system

of

official orre-

spondence,

houghperhaps

expedient

or ts

time,

eems

prohibitively

slow. Withouta doubt,problemswithinter-officialommunication

were

responsible

foroccasional

delays

in

police

work.

That the

system

functioned o

well is

also

surprising

n

light

of

the

broad

powers enjoyed

by

police

officers.

y empowering

aw en-

forcement fficials

o

confiscate

goods,

collect tax

arrears,

provide

crowd

control nd arrest nd detain

offenders,

he Ptolemies

granted

5

Visitingcrime scenes: e.g. P.Enteux. 5 (Magdola, 221

BCE);

PSI IV 393 (Phila-

delphia,

241

BCE);

SB

XVIII

13160

(Moeris,

244 or

219

BCE?).

Examining

evidence:

P.Cair.Zen.

II

59379

(?)

(Philadelphia,

ca. 254-251

BCE);

P.Enteux.

70

(Magdola,

221

BCE);

P.Petr.

II

28,E

(Sebennytos?,

24-218

BCE).

Sealing

homes

(and

other

buildings):

e.g.

P.Mich. XVIII

779

(Mouchis,

after192

BCE);

SB

XIV

12089

(Herakleopolite,

130

BCE);

ZPE

141

(2002)

185-90

(Herakleopolite,

37

BCE),

wo

documents

concerning

he

same

instance.

Questioning

witnesses

or

receiving

witness

testimony:

.g.

P.Enteux.

6

(Magdola,

221

BCE);

P.Petr.

I 32,2a

(Arsinoite,

17

BCE);

SB

X

10271

(Magdola,

231 or

206

BCE?).

Confiscating roperty: .g.

P.Cair.Zen.

V

59620

(Arsinoite?,

48-239

BCE);

P.Enteux.

8

(Theogonis,

218

BCE);

UPZ

I 5,

6 and 6a

(Memphis,

163

BCE),

hree

peti-

tions

concerning

he

same

instance.

Arrest,

etention

nd

transport

f

offenders:

.g.

BGU

VI

1248

(Syene,

137

BCE?);

P.Lille

3

(Magdola,

after

16-215

BCE);

P.Ryl.

V 570

(Krokodilopolis,

ca.

254-251

BCE).Conducting

trials:

e.g.

P.Cair.Zen.

I

59145

(?,

256

BCE);

P.Hib. II 233

(?,

III

BCE);

P.Tebt. 43

(Alexandria,

117BCE).

Protecting griculture:

e.g.

BGU

VIII 1851

Herakleopolite,

4-44

BCE);Chrest.Wilck.

31

(Kerkeosiris,

13

BCE);

P.Cair.Zen. 59136

(Arsinoite,

56

BCE).

Protecting eople:

e.g.

C.Ord.Ptol.2

2

(Mem-

phis,

99

BCE);

P.Petr.

I

1

(Arsinoite,

II

BCE);

P.Tebt.

III.1

786

(Oxyrhyncha,

a. 138

BCE).

Collecting

tax

arrears:

.g.

C.Ord.Ptol.2

3

(Kerkeosiris?,

18

BCE);

P.Cair.Zen.

II

59407

(Philadelphia?,

II

BCE);

P.Tebt.

III.1

764

(Tebtynis,

85

or 161

BCE?).



5/28

16

JOHN

BAUSCHATZ

them a kind of

monopoly

on violence.6

Brutality

etween

villagers

was not toleratedand was generallybroughtto a halt when police

were alerted

nd involved.'

Villager

ssaults on officials

were

usually

met

with

mmediate

rrest nd

imprisonment,

ut the same was not

always

the

case

when the roles

were

reversed.8

he reasons forthis

are

not difficulto

imagine.

Police

work

oftennecessitated

physical

element,

nd the

degree

to which

intimidation nd forcewere em-

ployed

depended

on

the nature of

the

operation being

carried out

and

the evel

of

cooperation

on the

part

of the

offending arty.

olice

often

had

to take

decisive,

physical

action to solve crimes.Without

doubt,

the

behavior

of Ptolemaic

law

enforcement

fficials ould

sometimesbe characterized s abuse. Butfromwhose pointof view?

Before

we

consider

the evidence

for

police

corruption

n

Ptole-

maic

Egypt,

point

of

terminology

must be clarified.9

will discuss

6

Though

it is

impossible

to

quantify,

herewas

certainly higher

evel of toler-

ance

for officialviolence

against villagers

n Ptolemaic

Egypt

than in most

modern

societies.

The Ptolemaic statewas determined

o have its

financial

needs met and em-

powered

its officials o

employ

almost

any

means

necessary

to meet them.As a con-

sequence,

villagers

sometimes

uffered

hysical

abuse at the hands

of

local

officials

when

cooperation

was

not full or

payment

was not offered.

Nevertheless,

s we shall

see,

the inhabitants f the

ch6ra

were

not

without recourse

when

physical

abuse be-

came excessive or even

life-threatening.

n officialviolence in Roman

Egypt,

see

Bagnall

(1989);

Alston

(1994).

To

my knowledge,

no

comparable study

of

the Ptole-

maic

period

exists.

PA

pair

of documents

from he archiveof

Dioskourides,

phrourarchos

f

Herakle-

opolis

in

the middle of the nd

century

CE,

demonstrates

hat

he

agents

of this official

were

quick

to

respond

to

public

disturbances.

n

the first ext

P.Diosk.

1

[Herakleo-

polite,

154

BCE?]),

petition

to

Dioskourides,

a

man

recounts

that an

agent

of

the

phrourarchos

ad

come to his home and arrested wo brawlers. n the

second

(P.Diosk.

6

[Herakleopolite,

46

BCE]),

nother

petition

o

Dioskourides,

a

pair

of men

asserted

that

hey

had been attacked everal

times,

nd describedthe arrest

f

a numberof

the

offenders,

hich

was

carried out

shortly

fter

ne of

the scuffles

y

an

agent

of the

phrourarchos.

ee

Bauschatz

(2005)

57-9 for

summary

f

the

police

duties of

phrour-

archoi,he heads of Ptolemaicgarrisons.For an overview of the office nd thearchive

of

Dioskourides,

as well as further

ibliography,

ee P.Diosk.

8

For

instance,

n

P.Tebt.

I

15

(Kerkeosiris,

14

BCE)

t

was

reported

hat two men

had attacked

an

epistates

nd 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

party

being transported

or

xaminationorchestrated n

attack

upon

a

hypo-

strategos

hich was

only

topped by

the

ntervention

f

a

machairophoros

nd

an

ephodos.

On

epistatai,

ee

n.

21,

below. On the

police

functions f

machairophoroi,

ee Bauschatz

(2005)

60 for

ttestations nd

additional

bibliography.

On

ephodoi

nd

their

uperiors,

see n.

27,

below.

9

I

append

here

an additional

clarification. he reader

will

notice that

employ

a

numberof

modern technical

nd

legal

terms o

designate

the officials

who

policed

the

Ptolemaic ch6ra cops, law enforcement, police ), the individuals theyappre-

hended for

wrongdoing

criminals )

and

the behavior of both

groups

( criminal,

illegal,

lawful,

legal,

unlawful ).

Admittedly,

many

of

these terms are in-

adequate

and/or

inaccurate when

applied

to

the

situation n

Ptolemaic

Egypt.

For

example,

it

is

certainly

nachronistic

o talk of the

existenceof

professional police

forces before such

organizations

were

introduced

in

Europe

in

the

17th nd

18th

centuries f our

era.

Nevertheless,

have chosen to

refer o the

police

of Ptolemaic



6/28

POLICE

CORRUPTION

IN

PTOLEMAIC EGYPT 17

two

types

of

police

abuses

in

this

ssay.

First,

will

examine

nstances

in

which police employed their considerablepowers of searching,

seizing,

arresting

nd

imprisoning

o

break

the

law.

I

will call

this

form

f

corruption

mistreatment.

fter

riefly

iscussing

some of

the

impediments

to

the

quick completion

of

police

business,

I

will

then touch

on

another

type

of

corruption:

occasions when

police

took no heed of official

rders

or

deliberately

disobeyed

them,

or

insubordination. will close with a

consideration f

a handful of

royal

decrees that

highlight olice corruption

fboth

types.10

Let us

begin

with

mistreatment. t first

lance,

there

appear

to

be

many

indications

that

mistreatment f civilians

by police

was

widespread. Most allegations of such abuses come frompetitions,

perhaps

our best source for the mechanics of

Ptolemaic

policing.

Petitions

provided

the

nhabitants

f the

Egyptian

countryside

with

a

fast,

eliable method of

invitingpolice

action.11

hey

demonstrate

that

the

Ptolemaic

populace

had

easy

access to law

enforcement.

After crimehad been

committed,

victim

ought

out a local

scribe,

presented

condensed

account of

events

and

sent a written

equest

for

action

to

an official t

the

village

level or

higher.

For the most

Egypt

because of the

many

similarities

etween the

duties

of

the officials o identified

and those

of

many

modern

police

officers

see above).

In

addition,

for he

purposes

of

this

essay

I

employ

the

terms

crime,

criminal and the like

as

synonyms

for

offense,

offender nd related

words

( evildoer,

evildoing, wrongdoing ).

The

reader

may object

that

many,

f

not most of the instances

of

wrongdoing

described

n

this

essay

are in fact orts

that

s,

civil

wrongs)

and

not

crimes,

nd that

my

use

of

the

terms crimes and criminals to describe

private

offenses nd

offenders

s

thus

misleading.

But

while this is true from he

standpoint

of the modern

English legal

system,

he distinction etween

the two

types

of

offenseswas

decidedly

ess

clear-cut

(if

t

existed)

n

Ptolemaic

Egypt.

Finally,

have chosen to

employ

a numberof terms

to

describe

Ptolemaic

society

hat

mply

the existence

f

a

body

of

aw

( breaking

he

law, illegal, lawful, legal, unlawful nd the ike) nspiteof thefact hat, s far

as we

know,

there was

no

universal

code of law

in

Ptolemaic

Egypt

to enforceor

break.

n

using

these terms

do not

mean

to

imply

thatofficials

ttempted

o

uphold

and offenders

ought

to violate a written ode of law.

Rather,

employ

the terms

to

describe

the maintenance

of

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

aw,

I

mean those who disturb

he establishedorder

by committing

ffen-

ses

against

members

of the

society

n which

they

ive.

Those who act

in a lawful

fashion,

n the other

hand,

are

responsible

for

estoring

rder after uch offenses

ave

been committed

nd,

to

some

extent,

or

preventing

uch offenses

rom

occurring

n

the first

lace.

10

The

reader

may

object

that

my

use of the

term

corruption

o

encompass

both

typesof abuses is misleading,as corruption uggestsnot onlyofficialdishonesty,

bias

and

abuse,

but

also

(and

primarily)

inancial

wrongdoing

and even

bribery.

et

as

will become

clear,

most

of the

alleged police

wrongdoing

discussed

in

this

essay

is

financial

n nature.

Further,

n several cases

police

officials

ppear

to have

expected,

demanded or received

bribes

from

illagers.

Ptolemaic

petitions

in

general:

Hombert/Preaux

1942);

di Bitonto Kasser

(1967,

1968

and

1976);

Parca

(1985).

Petitions

o

police:

Bauschatz

(2005)

65-102.



7/28

18

JOHN

BAUSCHATZ

part, petitioners

eem

to have

known whom to contactfor

specific

formsof redress. f the appropriateofficialwas notknown,a peti-

tioner

might

ppeal

to

a

local official nd ask that the

right

man

be

notified.12

he

people

who submitted

petitions

came

from

ll

seg-

ments

of

Ptolemaic

society.Evidently,

he social limitations

mposed

by

sex,

ethnicity,

ge,

social

status,

profession

nd even

literacy

evel

did not

preventpetitioners

rom

writing ppeals.

Even the

poorest

and

most

disadvantaged

membersof

society

were effective

etition-

ers.13

Petitions re central o our

understanding

f

the Ptolemaic law

enforcement

ystem,

ut for number

of

reasons

they

mustbe hand-

led with care.To beginwith,petitions re heavilybiased documents.

In

his

or

her

appeal,

a

petitioner

ad the

opportunity

o

present

the

facts f an incident

xactly

s

he

or she saw

them,

without

ny

objec-

tion or cross-examination romthe accused. As a

result,

petition

provides

us with

only

one

side

of

a

story.

n

addition,

petitions

re

rhetorical

documents,

n which

descriptions

of

pathos

are central.

The writers

f

petitions learly

understood

that

detailed

accounts

of

pain

and

suffering

ere

important ngredients

or

uccessful laims.

Doubtless some

petitioners,

eeking

to evoke as much

pity

as

pos-

sible

in

the

recipients

f their

ppeals, magnified

he extent f their

suffering,

nvented dditional abuses or even lied

outright

bout the

mistreatment

hey alleged.

A

final

imitation f the

petitions

s evi-

dence for

police corruption

s their

cope. They protest

wrongdoing

by

individual

officers

nd their

ccomplices,

but

do not ndicate that

police organized

themselves

nto

groups

for

extortion,

heft nd

the

like.

Such institutionalized

orruption,

hough

well-known

today,

seems to have

been

for the

most

part foreign

o

the

Egypt

of

the

Ptolemies.

Though

there re indicationsthat

police

sometimes

oper-

ated

in

groups

for

nefarious

purposes,

there

are

virtually

no com-

plaintsoforganized,conspiratorial, ystematicxtortion.14

To

begin

with,

police

officerswere

occasionally

accused

of theft

and

confiscation. olice were

sometimes

alleged

to

have

misappro-

priated money,

produce,

animals

or other

goods.'5

In

one

case,

t

was

12

Addressees

in

petitions

o

police:

Bauschatz

(2005)

82-6.

Petitions o

officials

with

nstructions hat he

recipient otify

he

appropriate

official(s)

r

take the

correct

action:

e.g.

P.Heid.

X

422

(Tinteris,

58

BCE);

433

(Herakleopolite,

61-155

BCE);

P.Tebt.

141

(Kerkeosiris,

05-90

BCE).

13

Bauschatz

2005)

81-2.

14

A

handful of

royal

decrees and circulars

eem to call

attention o

widespread

extortion y police officials: .Ord.Ptol.20-1 (?, 183BCE);34 (Oxyrhynchus?,86BCE);

53

(Kerkeosiris?,

18

BCE);

55

(Tebtynis,

a.

118

BCE);

P.Hib.

I

198

(Arsinoite?,

fter 42

BCE);

P.Mil.Congr.

XVII

pg.

29.10-13

(?)

(?,

100-99

BCE).

Yet

royal

edicts did

not

neces-

sarily

eflect onfirmed

nstances f aw

enforcement

rongdoing.

On the

decrees isted

here,

ee below.

15

Money:

e.g.

P.Cair.Zen.

V

59753.70-4

?,

III

BCE),

n

which

the writernoted

that

he had been

discovered

hiding

a

ship by

some

rhabdophoroi

nd

paid

them

drachma,



8/28

POLICE

CORRUPTION

N PTOLEMAICEGYPT 19

reported

hat

n

assistant o the

strategos

ad been

extorting

ine

(ZPE 141 2002]: 82-4 Herakleopolite,38BCE]);heoffenderasto

be arrestednd tried. lsewhere

swineherd ho

had

beendetained

by

an

archiphylakitis

n

his

way

home

reported

hat

he

policeman

had

confiscatedome

pigs

P.Cair.Zen.

59819

Krokodilopolis?,

54

BCE]).

Anotherman

complained

hat

is

grain

ad

been stolen rom

pair

of

threshing

loors nd askedthat

hal6nophylax

nd his

associ-

ates

be arresteds

suspects P.Oxy.

XII

1465

Oxyrhynchite,

BCE]).16

We

also see occasional

harges

f

wrongful

rrest

nd/or

mprison-

ment.

n

at least

six

cases,

petitioners

laimed hat

police

officials

had

made

unjust

rrests nd carried

ut unwarranted

etentions.17

likely

under

compulsion;

P.Coll.Youtie

16

(Arsinoite,

109

BCE?),

where

an

archi-

phylakitis

nd

his

subordinates eized

four

ilver drachmas and 1300 bronze drachmas

from

man;

P.Enteux. 8

(Theogonis,

218

BCE),

n

which

a

man

accused a

phylakites

f

illegally taking

possession

of a

cup

and

12

drachmas and

only returning

he

cup.

Produce:

e.g.

P.Enteux.

55

(Magdola,

222

BCE),

where a

petitioner

lleged

that an

offender

cting

n

conjunction

with a

gendmatophylax

ad

illegally

own his allotment

and

subsequently

onfiscated

he

produce;

P.Erasm.

1

(Oxyrhyncha,

48-147

BCE),

n

which

a man

complained

of extortion

f

rent

by

a

phylakites

nd an

archiphylakitis;

P.Princ. II 117 (Theadelphia, 55-54 or 4-3 BCE?),a hypomnemaoncerning grain

deposit disagreement

etween

a

petitioner

nd

a

thisaurophylax.

nimals:

e.g.

BGU

III

1012

(Philadelphia,

170

BCE),

where a

man

charged

that

an

archiphylakites

ad

confis-

cated a number of

probata

without

cause;

P.Cair.Zen.

II

59312

(Arsinoite,

50

BCE),

list

of

pigs

with a note that the

agents

of a

phylakitis

ad stolen

one;

SB

XVI 12468

(Arsinoite?,

II

BCE),

n

which

a

man accused

a

phylakites

f

confiscating

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

officials

nd

(in

one

instance)

a subordinate of

the

epistatis;

PE 141

(2002)

185-90

(Herakleopolite,

37

BCE),

wo documents

concerning

raid, arrest,

ome

sealing

and

confiscation

f a

pickled goose

and two

pillows, among

other

hings, y

the

agents

of

an

archiphylakitescting

without official anction.

On

rhabdophoroi,

ee

n.

19, below;

on gendmatophylakesnd the gendmatophylakia,. 32, below; on thesaurophylakes,ee

Bauschatz

(2005)

56.

16

As

their

title

suggests,

hal6nophylakes

uarded

threshing

loors.

They likely

played

an

important

role

in

the successful

completion

of the

gendmatophylakia,

he

annual

guarding

of

crops,

though hal6nophylakes

ccur

in

only

a few Ptolemaic texts

and the

form

hal6nophylaxnly

once:

P.Bingen

3.3

(?,

III-II

BCE):

a&r.wvoupX()

ca.

?]

E)OTopTa;

P.Cair.Zen.

V

59745.85-7

(Philadelphia?,

255-254

BCE):

IETEI'iv

I

Apapt

at.ovoq)uXalKOOVTi

Pheros

[88]

is

likely

lso

a

hal6nophylax);

.Col.

V

74.12

?)

(Phila-

delphia?,

248

BCE):

ca.

?]voqikXaKa;

.Oxy.

XII

1465.7-8

(Oxyrhynchite,

BCE):

2apa-

Trriova

&XhovopqpXa[K]a.

or more

on the

genematophylakia,

ee

below,

n. 32.

17

P.Coll.Youtie

16

(Arsinoite,

109

BCE?);

P.Enteux.

84

(Ghoran,

285-221

BCE);

P.Hib.

I

203 (?,

246-221

BCE);

P.Mich.

XVIII

773

(Oxyrhyncha

r

Krokodilopolis,

a.

194

BCE)

and 774

(Oxyrhyncha,

a. 194-193

BCE),

he same case inboth

texts;

P.Ryl.

V 570

(Krokodilopolis,

ca.

254-251

BCE);

P.Tebt.

III.1

777

(Tebtynis,

I

BCE).

n

P.Cair.Zen.

II

59475

(Philadelphia,

II

BCE)

phylakites

rrested

man and another

phylakitcs

fter he

two

gained possession

of a

runaway

horse that

had been locked

up by

the ocal

police.

The arrest eems

to

have been

the result

of a

mistake,

not bias. It should

be noted that

many

more

petitions

detailing

complaints

of

wrongful

rrest nd

detention urvive.

Those

not mentioned

here contain accusations

against

officials rom ther

pheres

of



9/28

20

JOHN

BAUSCHATZ

These

petitioners

depicted

their arrest and

imprisonment

s

arbi-

trary.As one mightexpect, alleged victimsregularlymaintained

their nnocence

n

letters o officials

omplaining

of

these

practices.18

One

petitioner equested

an

investigation

nto

charges

that a

police

chief

had

wrongly

rrested ne

of his slaves

(P.Hib.

I 203

[?,

246-221

BCE]).

Elsewhere a man

complained

that

a

tax farmer nd a

rhabdo-

phoros

ad

unjustly

rrested nd

whipped

him,

extorted

lump

of

silver

and a necklace from

him,

and detained him for

one

night

(P.Mich.

XVIII 773

[Oxyrhyncha

r

Krokodilopolis,

a.

194

BCE]

nd

774

[Oxyrhyncha,

a.

194-193

BCE]).19

n

a

final

case,

a man who

had

been

placed

in

prison by

an

angry

relative

with

the

cooperation

of

a

phylakitesas denied releaseby a desmophylax,ven after herelative

had

requested

that he

be set free

(P.Enteux.

84

[Ghoran,

285-221

BCE]).20

Unjust

rrests ould involve

physical

buse,

often

utlined

n

grim

detail

by

petitioners.

n a

fragmentary

etter,

or

example,

a

prisoner

complained

of the

unjust

arrest

he had

suffered t

the hands of

the

Kerkesouchan

police,

who had acted with bia and

hybris

n

bringing

him n

(P.Ryl.

V

570

[Krokodilopolis,

a.

254-251

BCE]).

n

the

case of

the

cobblerfrom

Oxyrhyncha,

he

offending

fficialswere

alleged

to

have executed the

arrest

with

every

form f

mistreatment

nd hubris

and blows

(P.Coll.Youtie

16.15-16

[Arsinoite,

09

BCE?]:

pET&

TOO

TraVTO-r

I

OKUXhpO0

Kai

I3PpECO5

Kal

TIXTiyCwV).

According

to

another

government

r

do not

specify

he titles

or

administrative

omains

of

the

offending

parties.

See

e.g.

BGU

VIII

1821

(Herakleopolite,

57-56

BCE),

n

which a man com-

plained

that

he

had been

unjustly

rrested

by

a

tax

official

nd

some

accomplices;

P.Cair.Zen.

III

59368

(Memphis?,

241

BCE),

a letter

detailing

the

unjust

arrest and

detentionof a

chortophylaxy

an

oikonomos;

B

XX

14708

(Theadelphia,

151

BCE),

a

petitiondescribing hearbitraryailingof a man at the hands of a corruptkdmarchis.

On

phylakes

ith duties

n

the

realm of

aw enforcement

among

these

chortophylakes),

see Bauschatz

(2005)

52-6;

on

oikonomoi,

.

33,

below;

on

k6marchai,

erneker

1935)

127-30;

P.Yale

153

pp.

156-61.

18

Nevertheless,

etainees sometimes

dmitted hat

they

had erred and

asked for

forgiveness.

n

P.Cair.Zen. II

59495

(Philadelphia?,

II

BCE),

for

example,

two

swine-

herds

sought pity

from

Zenon fortheir

wrongdoing,owning up

to their

guilt

while

encouraging

him to

remember

hat

everyone

makes

mistakes

2-3:

dcv

yap ip6p-

TOPIEV

T[E]TIICOpfElEIOa

O

jE'iS

yaxp

(xvap6CpTlT65

oTrlv).

In

P.Polit.Iud.

(Herakleo-

polite,

a.

135

BCE),

prisoner

equested

that

he

be freedfrom

he

phylake

ince

he had

learned his lesson

and had

already spent enough

time

wasting

away

in

detention

6-

11:

TuYXQVCOl. cTatiCOSW VEVOUETTJP.EVO,

Kai

TTrpav

qpuXaKfi5E'iXrlq)CS

Kav6a

TE

I

Eiqipa5KaTErpOapl1pEvos).n Zenon,see n.35,below.

19

On

rhabdophoroi,

ee Bauschatz

(2005)

59-60. The

rhabdophoros

n

these

texts,

certain

Menelaos,

is

not

given

a

title,

but his

designation

as ho kata

polin

773.11-12;

774.12-13)

makes the

identification

ikely; compare

PSI IV 332.11

(Philadelphia,

257

BCE):

'p830o6pcw

TCO

KarKT rr6Atv.

20

Among

the

duties

of

desmophylakes

ere the

receipt

and

release of

prisoners

and

the

receipt

f

bail

payments:

Bauschatz

2005)

118-19 and 121.



10/28

POLICE

CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

21

petition,

when

a

launderer

disputed

payment by

an

epistates

or a

cloak (himation)he launderer had been asked to wash, the epistates

beat and

stomped

him

and handed

him

over to

the

village police

(SB

XX

15001

[Krokodilopolis,

217

BCE]).21

ater,

the

epistates

eturned

with

accomplices,

administered

n additional

beating

and scattered

the aunderer's

merchandise ver the

floor f his

shop.

Occasionally police

officers arried

out

complex,

multifaceted

sting

operations.

These offensives

gainst

homes and

possessions

were often

erceived

as

unjust.

They

seem

to have

followed

a

predic-

table

series of

steps.

An

invasion

of a house or other

building typi-

cally

came

first,

ollowed

by

an

assault on

the

inhabitants,

search

forvaluables,and thendeparture, enerallywithgoods and/orpeo-

ple

in

tow.

The

story

of the cobbler

from

Oxyrhynchus

s a

good

example

P.Coll.Youtie

16

[Arsinoite,

09

BCE?]).

n

a similar

ncident,

a

number of

police

officials rrested

some

farmers,

ealed a

home,

confiscated

tems

and

departed,

all

without official anction

(ZPE

141

[2002]

185-90

[Herakleopolite,

37

BCE]).

n a

final

case,

an

agent

of a

temple

archiphylakites,

number

of

phylakitai

nd an

accomplice

illegally

earched

he

emple

for

weapons

allegedly

hidden

there

UPZ

I

5,

6

and 6a

[Memphis,

163

BCE]).2

Finding nothing,

he

police

left

the

scene;

but

the

accomplice

returned

ater,

n

what

looks

like a

surprise

inspection,

accompanied

by

an

agent

of the

epistatAs,

or

additional

searching

nd confiscation.23

On

the surface

at

least,

the evidence

from

petitions

for mis-

treatment

f civilians

by

police

seems

damning.

But is

it conclusive?

To

begin

with,

procedures

employed

in

illegal

confiscations

nd

those

sanctioned

by

the

government

or

the

payment

of tax arrears

are

similar.

n one

case,

a

petitioner

omplained

to

an

epistatis

hat n

archiphylakitis

ad

appropriated

some

of

his taxable livestock

and

enclosed

them

n

the home of one

of

his officers

BGU

III

1012

[Phila-

delphia,170BCE]).Elsewhere man notedthathewas beinghounded

by

an

archiphylakitis

or

the

return

f some

government

eed

as

well

as his

crops,

which had been

wrongly

onfiscated

y

another

official

21

Epistatai: avigne

(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.

ntroduction.

hese offi-

cials,

the

highest-ranking

epresentatives

f the

central

government

n

the

towns

and

villages

of the

ch6ra,

ad direct

upervision

over

the

archiphylakitai

and

thus

by

exten-

sion

the

phylakitai)

n their dministrative

reas:

Bauschatz

2005)

48-9.

22

Archiphylakitai

ere found

in

villages,

the

regions

around

villages,

merides,

toparchies,

omes

and

even

temples:

Bauschatz

2005)

37.

23

See also BGU VIII 1855 (Herakleopolite,64-44 BCE), petitionconcerning n

instance

of

breaking

and

entering

y

a

group

of men

including

an

archephodos.

he

raiders

broke

down

the

door to the

petitioner's

ouse,

mistreated is

mother nd

took a

dovecote.

The

petitioner

haracterized

he

nvasion and

assault as violent

(p3iatov,

8)

and

requested

that

the activities

of the

offending

fficials

e

brought

o a

halt,

but

never

ndicated

that

there

was no

justification

or he

raid. For more

on this

text,

ee

below.



11/28

22

JOHN

BAUSCHATZ

(BGU

VIII 1836

[Herakleopolite,

1-50

BCE]).

Yet

archiphylakitai

nd

their ubordinateswereregularly mployedfor he collection fdebts

to the crown.24 he extraction

f state debts fromdebtors

unwilling

or

unable

to

pay

must

occasionally

have

involved

unpleasant

action

and even

prompted

petitions.

One

wonders how

many complaints

f

wrongful

onfiscation

y police

officialswere

written ut of

spite

or

resentment t

a

legal

(though physical)

seizure of assets

by

the

government.

o a

subsistence

armer he ine between

ust

and

unjust

extraction ould be blurred.

Similar

doubts

arise when we reconsider ases

in

which

villagers

complained

of unfair rrests

r

imprisonments.25 any

crimes ould

lead toimprisonmentnPtolemaicEgypt, ut incarceration as often

the

result of

debts.26

etitioners ometimes

claimed that

they

had

been

dragged away

or

locked

up

even

though they

owed

no

debt,

taxes or otherwise.One

prisoner omplained

thathe had

been arres-

ted

by

a tax official nd

accomplices

even

though

he owed

the crown

nothing

BGU

VIII

1821

[Herakleopolite,

7-56

BCE]).

Another sked

for

help

in

securing

release

from

prison,

where

he

had

been sent un-

justly

on

a

charge

of

debt,

though

he had

already

paid

the

crown ts

due

(P.Cair.Zen. II

59496

[Krokodilopolis,

248-241

BCE]).

Even the

cobbler

from

Oxyrhynchamay

not

have been the

nnocenthe

soughtto

appear

(P.Coll.Youtie 16

[Arsinoite,

09

BCE?]).

The factthat the

archiphylakitis

nd his

accomplices

extracted

large

amount of

money

fromhim-and

in

such a brazen

manner-suggests

thathe

had

de-

faultedon

a

debt to the state.

n

many,

f

not 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.

n

any

case,

violence was

certainly

mployed

from

time

to time

to

bring

n

those

thought

to

have defaulted on

debts.

Corruptionmaynot have been a huge factorn such arrests.Yet we

generally

cannot

be certain about

the

veracity

of claims

of

unjust

arrestfor

debt,

and

petitions

containing

uch

claims must accord-

ingly

be

handled

with

caution.

The

evidence for

police

raids

provides

both thebest

examples

of

alleged

police

mistreatment f civilians and

some of the finest n-

stances of dedicated

police

work. Without

question,

these

operations

could involve

violence

against people

and

property:

reaking

down

doors,

seizing

and

arresting

ndividuals

and

confiscating oods.

Yet,

as we have

just

seen,

routine

police

business

involved the same

sorts

ofactivities. etitionerswho complainedofpolice raidswere careful

24

Bauschatz

(2005)

170-3.

25

On

imprisonment

n

Ptolemaic

Egypt,

ee

Taubenschlag

1959);

H6lmis

(1986);

Ambaglio

1987);

Marcone

1999);

Bauschatz

(2005)

114-26.

26

Bauschatz

2005)

114-15.



12/28

POLICE

CORRUPTION

IN PTOLEMAIC

EGYPT

23

to submit

graphic

accounts

of events.

But

though

they

often

pro-

claimed their nnocence, hey rarelydemonstrated onclusively hat

they

were

withoutfault

or blame.

In one

case,

a

man claimed

that a

group

of

men,

ncluding

an

archephodos,

ad

broken down

the door

to his

house,

mistreated

is mother

nd seized

a dovecote

BGU

VIII

1855

[Herakleopolite,

64-44

BCE]).27

he

writer

requested

that the

petitioned

official

ring

n

and

try

he

offenders,

o ensure

that

they

attempted othing

violent

n

the

future nd

would

receive

the

proper

punishment.

But the

details

of the raid are

puzzling.

Why

would

so

many

officials

ave carried

out

such a brutal

operation

olely

for he

purpose

of

taking

a birdhouse

and

beating up

an old

lady?

The

petitioner eems to have withheldinformation. or one thing,he

does

not

say

that

the

police

had

no

right

o seize

the

property.

ould

this

have been

a

government-sanctioned

peration

o obtain

payment

for

debt?

Perhaps

someone

had accused

the

petitioner's

mother

f

having

stolen

the

dovecote,

necessitating police

investigation

nd

confiscation

f the

allegedly

stolen

goods.28

Alternatively,

he

dove-

cote

may

have

been stolen

by

someone

else

and

deposited

in the

petitioner's

ouse

for

afekeeping.29

r

perhaps

twas stolen

property

that

had been

purchased

unawares

by

the

petitioner,

who

will then

have

thought

he was

in

the

right,

ven

if he was

not.

In

addition,

t

seems

likely

that

government

gents

bent on extortionwould have

taken

more

than

a

large

birdhouse.

Would

such

a

prize

have

merited

the

time and

effort o

assemble

a

team of

officials

nd coordinate

a

raid?

The evidence

not

supplied

in this

case,

and

in

a

handful of

others

ike

t,

raises

questions

about

the nformation

urnished

y

the

petitioner. g

ot

all

police

raids

were

necessarily

the actions

of

27

Archephodoippear

in

only

three

Ptolemaic

texts:

BGU

VIII 1855.7-8

(Herakle-

opolite,

64-44

BCE);

P.IFAO

II

4.3-4

(Arsinoite,

103

BCE);

P.Tebt.

90.i.1

(Tebtynis,

BCE).See Bauschatz (2005) 56-7.

28

Requests

for confiscation

f

stolen/borrowed

property:

.g.

BGU

VIII 1761

(Herakleopolite,

0

BCE),

n which a

man detailed

the

illegal

occupation

of his house

and confiscation

f his

crops by

an offender

nd

requested

thatthe

stolen

produce

be

impounded;

P.Cair.Zen.

I 59145

(?,

256

BCE),

where

a woman

who

had been

robbed

asked

Zenon to

have

an

archiphylakitis

nvestigate

nd

return

he stolen

tems,

which

had

been

found;

P.Enteux.

2

(Magdola,

221

BCE),

n which

a man

complained

that a

villager

had

not

returned

he

hoes and

money

he had

borrowed

and

asked that

the

epistatis

ompel

the accused

to hand

themover.

29

Harboring

of stolen

goods:

e.g.

P.Hib.

I

34

(Oxyrhynchite,

43

BCE)

and

73

(Oxyrhynchite,

44-243

BCE),

where an

archiphylakitis

llegally

?)

held a

stolen

donkey

in his

home;

II

198.86-92

(Arsinoite?,

fter

242

BCE),

a

royal

decree

specifying

hat

thosewho harboredrowerswho had runaway from heroyalfleetwere to be penal-

ized;

SB

VIII 9792

(Hermoupolis

Magna,

162

BCE),

n

which a

petitioner

elated that

one

of his

stolen

donkeys

had been

discovered

n a

temple

along

with the thief

?)

and

asked

that he

thief e

detained

and

the animal

returned.

30

See

also,

e.g.,

P.Cair.Zen.

I 59275

(Arsinoite,

51

BCE),

petition

from

man

who had

been

arrested

and

had his

home

sealed

and

his meat confiscated

by

a

number

of tax

officials,

ikely

because

of

a failure

o

pay

his taxes

though

he does

not



13/28

24

JOHN

BAUSCHATZ

corrupt

officials;

many

were

likely egitimate,

f

sometimes

violent,

operationsdesignedtoobtainmissing, wed or stolenproperty.

Furtherevidence

for the need

to

closely

scrutinize

reports

of

police

mistreatment

f

civilians

comes from the fact that

alleged

victims ometimes

complained

about

police

officials o other

police

officers,

ften those

with

supervisory

powers

over the

offending

parties.

One

petitioner

omplained

to

an

epistates

hat an

archiphyla-

kiteshad

wrongly

confiscated ome of his flocks nd handed them

over to one

of his officers

BGU

III

1012

[Philadelphia,

170

BCE]).

Archiphylakitaiegularly

answered to

epistatai;

this

victim,

quite

reasonably, complained

to the offender's

uperior.31

ome

petitions

went over the heads of the town orvillage police. In theexample of

the

cobbler,

he

alleged

victimwrote

to

the

strategos oncerning

he

violent

extortion

f

the

archiphylakites

P.Coll.Youtie

16

[Arsinoite,

109

BCE?]).

The

petitioner

may

have had no recourseforhis

complaint

in the immediate

vicinity

nd

been

obliged

to

contact

a

provincial

official.

lsewhere,

nother

petitioner

ikewise

wrote

to

the

strategos

to

complain

that

he

had been cheated

by

a

genematophylax

nd an

accomplice

(P.Enteux.

55

[Magdola,

222

BCE]).32

e asked that

the

epistates

end the accused

for examinationbefore the

strategos.

he

picture

s clear: when law enforcement

fficials

misbehaved,

other

law enforcementfficialswere called on to

provide ustice.

Petitioners

would not have

complained

to

police

officers bout the

abuses

of

other

police

officers nless

they

felt

ome

general

confidence

n

the

police

system.

After

ll,

they

had the

option

of

reporting

olice

misbehavior o

civil or financial

fficials.

n

the case of the

aunderer ttacked

by

the

epistates,

he

alleged

victimfiled his

complaint

with the

oikonomos,

financial fficer

SB

XX

14999

[Krokodilopolis?,

17

BCE]).33

n

another

case,

a

grain transport

fficialwrote

to the

epimeletes

o

complain

that

an archiphylakitesad improperly rrested number ofshipbuilders

say

as

much);

P.Mich.

XVIII

779

(Mouchis,

after 92

BCE),

where a

man

requested

that

the

phylakitai

rrest r seal

the home of an oikonomos ho

had extorted

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),

hree

petitionsdetailing

a

pair

of

searches for

weapons

carriedout

in a

templeby

an

agent

of the

temple archiphylakitis,

ome

phyla-

kitai and other

accomplices.

The

petitionerportrayed

the

searches

(especially

the

second)

as violent nd

unjust.

31

Epistatai

ad

many police

duties,

a

number

of which

overlapped

with those of

thephylakitaind their uperiors.See n. 21, above, formore on theseofficials. or the

administrative ies between

epistatai

nd

archiphylakitai,

ee

Bauschatz

(2005)

47-9.

32

Gendmatophylakia

nd

the

gendmatophylakes

ho

ran

it:

see

e.g.

Bauschatz

(2005)

148-52 and

158-66;

P.Mich.XVIII

769

pp.

99-103;

P.Tebt.

27

pp.

105-14.

33

Oikonomoi: erneker

1935)

94-102

in

general;

Bauschatz

(2005)

152-8 on the

relationship

between

oikonomoi,

rchiphylakitai

nd

epimeletai

on

whom

see the

fol-

lowing

note).



14/28

POLICE

CORRUPTION IN

PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

25

(Chrest.Wilck.

66

[Arsinoite,

18

BCE]).34

ometimes

petitioners p-

pealed to other mportant eople. The man who complained that a

phylakites

ad

wrongly

rrestedhis

brother-in-law rote to the

well-

known and well-connected

enon of Kaunos forredress

P.Cair.Zen.

III

59475

[Philadelphia,

II

BCE]).35

lsewhere

a

farmer

omplained

to

the

king

and

queen

that an

archiphylakites

nd a

phylakites

ad at-

tempted

to extract entfromhim

illegally

on

two

separate

occasions

(P.Erasm.

1

[Oxyrhyncha,

48-147

BCE]);

the

petitioner

sked that

the

sovereigns

contact

the

village

epistates

o

arrange

a

trial.36

here

was no official

ppeals procedure.

Petitioners eem to

have

con-

tacted

whomever

they

thought

might

ecure

full,

fast

atisfaction,

e

itpolice,civil,financial rother.The fact hatpetitioners othered o

submit such

grievances

to

government gents suggests

that

they

expected

to receive

justice.

That even a handful of

complaints

of

police

misbehaviorfound their

way

to

law enforcement

fficials

ug-

gests

that

he

police

force,

hough surely ontaining

few

bad

seeds,

for he most

part

upheld

the

aw

reliably.People

endured

abuses at

the

hands

of

the

policemen

who

served

them,

but not on a

regular

basis.

Yet

corruption

n the ranks

of hePtolemaic

police

was not imited

to

instances of

brutality

directed

at

villagers.

As with

any large

organization, reakdowns occurred n theadministrativemachinery

of law and order

n

Ptolemaic

Egypt.

Miscommunicationwas occa-

sionally

a

problem, eading

to

delayed

or

denied

justice

forvictims

of

crime.

n a few

cases,

police

were slow to act on official rders or

took no action whatsoever.

n

one

instance,

superior

took an archi-

phylakitis

o task for

failing

o act

expediently

n orders

concerning

quantity

f timber

P.Tebt.

II.1

747

[Tebtynis,

43

BCE]).37

In another.

a

petitioner

oted that

the

recipient

f his

complaint, stratigos,

ad

previously

ordered an

epistatis

o

transport

n offender ortrial

SB

XXIV

16295

[Oxyrhyncha,

99

BCE]).

The

epistates,

owever,

had not

taken action,so the

petitioner equested

thatthe

strategos ive

the

orderto send the accused

a second timeand

in

a more forcefulman-

ner. A

final

example

preserves

an instance of

multiple

counts of

34

The

epimel^tis

was

an

upper-level

officialwith

authority

n

certain areas of

financial dministration:

erneker

1935)

90-4.

35

On Zenon

and the archive of documents associated

with

him,

see Rostovtzeff

(1922);

Pestman

1981);

Orrieux

1983,

1985);

Clarysse

and

Vandorpe

(1995).

36

See

also,

e.g.,

P.Cair.Zen.

V

59819

(Krokodilopolis?,

254

BCE),

a letterfrom

swineherd o

Zenon,

in which the former

etailed his

three-day

etention

y

an

archi-

phylakitisnd theresultingoss of three f Zenon's pigs;P.Ryl.

V

570

(Krokodilopolis,

ca. 254-251

BCE),

petition

o Zenon

from man who

alleged

that he had been un-

justly

arrested

by

the

phylakitai

f

Kerkesoucha;

SB

XX

15001

(Krokodilopolis,

217

BCE),

n

appeal

to

the

king

concerning

buses suffered

t the hands

of an

epistatis

nd

his

accomplices.

37

The

archiphylakites,

atron,

s not

given

a

title

n this

text,

ut the dentification

is secure. See

n.

52,

below.



15/28

26

JOHN

BAUSCHATZ

official

naction

SB

XVI12468

[Arsinoite?,

II

BCE]).

A man

en routeto

visit a prisonerhad had his donkeyconfiscatedby a phylakites.e

had

submitted

petition

o

a

police

official bout the

theft,

ut did

not receive a

summons,

o he went

to an

archimachimos

or

redress.38

Yet not even this

had

produced

satisfactory

esults,

nd the victim

was

compelled

to write

again

to the official

riginallypetitioned

o

urge

the

archimachimos

o return is

property.39

Police inaction and slow

response

seem to have

been serious

issues. Government

gents occasionally

ended their nstructions o

subordinates

with threats

of

punishment

for naction or

improper

action.

In

one

case,

for

instance,

an officialwas ordered to

bring

a policeman into anotheradministrative istrict nd told not to do

otherwise

SB

VI

9104

[Arsinoite,

95

BCE]).

n

another,

n oikonomos

commanded an

archiphylakitis

o

make an

arrest and assured him

that

he

would

be

doing wrong

if

he failed to follow orders

P.Heid.

VII 393

[Arsinoite/

emphite,

III

BCE]).40

lsewhere,

an unknown

official orwarded nstructions

oncerning

he

harvesting

f treesfor

the

king, xhorting

he man

in

charge

of the

police

([T6v]brri

C)v

q)uaKITTCV, 14)

not

to

disregard

the

orders,

but to

make their xecu-

tion a

priority

SB

VI

9215

[Oxyrhynchus,

50

BCE]).

n

a final

case,

an officialwas asked to

prevent phylakitis

rom

ecoming

entangled

in unnecessarybusiness and to compelhim to remainsober, nsofar

as he

was able

(BGU

III

1011.iii.4-9

?,

II

BCE]).

Clearly,police

were

not immune frombad behavior or the bad

reputations

connected

with it.41

38

The official

etitioned

n

this case is nowhere

given

a title.

Machimoi: cholar-

ship

on

these officials nd their

upervisors

archimachimoi)

s

extensive;

ee

Goudriaan

(1988)

121-5;

Oates

(1994);

and

especially

P.Yale I

33

pp.

86-91,

where a

very

detailed

account

of

the attestations or

nd duties

of,

s

well as

previous

scholarship

on,

machi-

moi

s

given.

39

See also,

e.g.,

P.Enteux. 5

(Magdola,

221BCE),where a

petitioner

oted thathe

had

previously

submitted

complaint

to the

stratigos

oncerning

he

distribution f

some

grain,

nd thatthe

strategos

ad

subsequently

rdered the

competent pistatis

o

take

action,

but the

epistates

ad done

nothing;

P.Mich. XVIII 779

(Mouchis,

after192

BCE),

n

which

a

petitioner

elated that after

previous petition

to an

agent

of the

dioiketis

oncerning

xtortion

P.Mich.

XVIII

778),

an

archiphylakitis

ad been

instructed

to

bring

n

an

offender,

ut had not done

so;

P.Princ.

II

117

(Theadelphia,

55-54 or 4-3

BCE?),

where

a

woman noted

that fter he had been

cheated

by

a

thisaurophylax,

he

had

submitted

petition

o the

addressee

(a

stratigos)

who in turn

ordered he

village

epistates

o

bring

n

the

accused.

The

epistates

ad

arrested

he

thesaurophylax,

ut had

takenno

steps

to

transport

im.

40

Neither

he

oikonomos,

ephyros,

nor the

archiphylakitis,

ikaios,

is

given

a

title

in thedocument.Fortheidentification fZephyros, ee P.Heid.VII 393 pp. 43-4; for

Dikaios, P.Heid.

VII 393

pp.

45-6;

Pros.Ptol.

562.

41

It

was

not

exclusively

their

uperiors

who

developed

bad

impressions

of un-

disciplined police

officials. ometimes

n

unpopular

policeman might

indhimself

he

object

of ridicule:

P.Kijln

X

367.2

(Arsinoite

or

Herakleopolite?,

I

BCE):

6

KEKOXXO-

TTEUKCO AIOVGuIO5

6

&pX()P[u(\aKiTTnI)].



16/28

POLICE CORRUPTION IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT 27

We

are

especially

well-informed bout the

activities f

a

certain

policeofficial nownonly s Ptolemaios,who was regularly eminded

thathe

was to follow orders and

not foul

up.42

He

is

given

a title n

none of the texts

n

which he

appears,

but the

scope

of his

duties

(extracting

rent

payments,

running

errands,

transporting

eople)

and

the

officials romwhom he

received instruction

including

an

archiphylakitis

nd an

oikonomos)

ed the editorsof P.Hib.

I

(p.

194)

to

suggest

thathe

may

have

been a

phylakites.43

he official

nstructions

that

reached

him

regularly

ncluded forceful

anguage.

We see

him

threatened

with

having

to

pay

for

any

inaccuracies detected

n

the

agricultural

ccounts

entrusted o

him,

told not to

drag

his feet n

accomplishingbusiness, scolded forharassing a taxpayer, ncour-

aged

not to

do

otherthan as he was instructed

nd,

in

one

instance,

upbraided

for

poor

conduct

n the

village

and threatenedwith

pun-

ishment orhis

actions.44

nfortunately,

he

evidence

that

Ptolemaios

was

not

themost

responsible

f

police

officers,

houghoverwhelming,

is all circumstantial.

ndeed,

it

may

provide

more nformation bout

the

management style

of

commanding

officers han

the

poor

work

habits

of subordinates.

The

reasons behind

instances of official naction are

usually

impossible

to

determine,

ut sensible

explanations

can

occasionallybe offered.n one case, for

xample,

a numberof

phylakitai

hom an

archiphylakitis

ad

selected

to serve as

gendmatophylakes

ailed to

42

Ptolemaios

appears

in

the

following

16

texts,

ll of

Oxyrhynchite

rovenance

(except

where

ndicated):

P.Hib.

51

(245 BCE);

2

(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);

I 240

(?,

ca. 250-

245

BCE);

nd

P.

Yale

I

34

(250 BCE)

and

35

(249 BCE).

For

a

discussion of

these

papyri,

see

P.

Yale

pp.

94-5.

43

The editors

of

P.Yale

I

later

suggested

that

Ptolemaios

was most

ikely

k6mo-

grammateus,iting

s

compelling

ndicators

his

attested

police

and financialduties and

his contactwith theoikonomos

pp.

94-5). Yet the Ptolemaic

police

had a number of

financial

duties

in

their

villages

and maintained

regular

contact

with the

oikonomos:

Bauschatz

(2005)

152-8.

Certainty

s

impossible,

but

it

seems more

likely

that Ptole-

maios was a

police,

rather

han a

civil,

official.

xtracting ayments:

P.Hib.

51; 52; 53;

130;

167

(?);

P.Yale I

35.

Running

errands:

P.Hib.

I

54;

58.

Executing

arrests/transfers:

P.Hib.

157;

59; 60; 61; 62;

168; P.Yale

34.

Ptolemaios received

a

reprimand

rom

atron,

archiphylakitis

n

P.Yale

I 35

(see

n.

52,

below,

for he identification

f

Patron).

He was

contacted

by

Zenodoros,

oikonomosnd

toparches

n

P.Hib.

I

59

and

60,

and wrote to

Zenodoros

in

P.Hib.

I

240

(see

Pros.Ptol. 53a

=

1042

[?]

=

1043 for

he

dentification

f

Zenodoros).

44

Inaccuracies:

P.Hib.

1

53.3-4:

1TEIpC

o)v

&oapahXc5

Eyyuav

cbS

TrpOS

a

I

ToO

X6[y]ou

icopovo