Among the Coptic texts of the Palau-Ribes collection, there is a number of papyri and ostraca originating from a monastic context. For the moment, most of them have been inventoried and catalogued, but only a few of these texts have been published or edited². The following papyrus is a sample thereof.

The papyrus is reasonably well preserved, and the text is almost complete, but two fragments from two different papyri have been stuck on its lower left side in modern times, probably by the dealer in order to cover holes. One of them occupies the space corresponding to the beginning of line 6, and the other that of lines 9 and 10. These fragments, which contain some letters running parallel to the lines of the main text (see commentary below), have not yet been removed from the main piece because the conservation work on the collection has not been completed yet. The writing surface, however, had been reinforced in ancient times: patches can be seen on the back, and on the front, several strips of papyrus have been stuck horizontally, probably to conceal damage and/or remains of previous writing (see comm. to the beginning of lines 5, 8 and 9). It is on these strips that the order has been written. The main text runs along the fibres. The edges of the papyrus have survived intact, showing margins at the top and the left hand side. The verso is blank, although some traces of letters are visible on the middle left hand edge, on one of the strips stuck to reinforce the writing surface. The document was written by a scribe named Hellotos in a semi-cursive hand. The following letters have hooked tails: ɪ, м, ᴩ, т and ԛ. The document was signed by a second hand in a large rudimentary majuscule. The papyrus can be dated to the eighth century AD.

The papyrus contains an order for payment in wine. Apa Victor is ordered to give twenty kadoi each to Papa Papnoute and to brother Anoup. The text begins with the opening formula пєɴєɪɷт пєтcᴢᴧɪ м̅пєԛϣнᴩє, literally «It is our father who writes to his son». This formula, as Sarah Clackson has established, is linked to the Monastery of Apa Apollo in Bawit³. It is found in several texts from the archive of this monastery, and it was named by Clackson as the «Our father-formula»⁴. Consequently this document joins to the corpus of the 74 documents published in P.BawitClackson 1-71 and P.Brux.Bawit 1-3.

One point of particular interest about this piece is that the order issued by the superior of the monastery, Daniel, is authorized by his signature. He is also identified in more documents from this monastic archive. Daniel is mentioned as archimandrite of the topos of Apa Apollo in P.Mon. Apollo 25. He also signs several orders of this kind, P.BawitClackson 14-17 and 60, as well as the Greek text P.Lugd. Bat. XXV 78.

The addressee, Apa Victor, who is responsible for the payment, can be identified as the same person named in P.BawitClackson 16. This text is an order addressed to him and also authorized by Daniel. P.BawitClackson 6 is also issued to a man named Victor, but it is signed by Keri, another superior of the monastery. The scribe Hellotos, however, is not attested in any published document from this archive.

The payment for wine is assigned to some people who appear in a list (γνῶсιс). This is also a remarkable point. The orders for payment or supply from Bawit are usually assigned to one person as beneficiary. Only a small number of them are dispensed to more than one person or to groups of people. This is the case of P.BawitClackson 40, which is addressed to three people, and P.BawitClackson 13, addressed to bakers. P.BawitClackson 20 is the only text from this archive which contains a detailed list of the beneficiaries.

The present document has features similar to those of the other known orders. It is a small piece of papyrus which apparently has already been used before⁵; the text is short, and it follows the basic structure of other known orders for payment: opening formula (12), the order of payment itself (2-3), the list of beneficiaries (5-8), the total of payment and the name of the scribe (9), the date (4) and the signature (10)⁶.

P.PalauRib. inv. 352

16,3 x 12,6 cm

VIIIth cent. AD Bawit (Hermopolite nome)

† пєɴєɪɷт пєтcᴢᴧɪ ɴпԛϣнᴩє

ᴧпᴧ вɪκтɷᴩ ϫє пᴧнᴩоу ɴєсɴну

єуᴧєɴ тɪґɴɷcɪc ɴнтɴ пᴩоc ᴩоc

Μεϲο(ρὴ) κβ ἰνδ(ικτίωνοϲ) η

5 ппᴧпᴧ пᴧпɴοутє ᴢᴧ тєκκᴧнcɪ-

[ᴧ ɴᴧ]пᴧ ϰᴩɪcтоᴧɷᴩ̣є̣ οἴ(νου) κάδ(οι) κ

[пᴧcо]ɴ ᴧɴоуп п пᴧ тκупє ɴᴧпᴧ пᴧпоᴢє

οἴ(νου) κάδ(οι) κ

[γί(νεται) οἴ(νου) κ]άδ(οι) μ τεϲϲαράκο(ντα) Ἑλλῶτ(οϲ)

(2^nd hand)

10 [† ᴧᴧ]ɴɪнᴧ ϲтнϰє

It is our father who writes to his son Apa Victor: give to the brothers who will bring you this list (…). Mesore 22, 8^th indiction. Papa Papnoute, for the church of Apa Christodore: 20 jars of wine. Brother Anoup of the cell (?) of Apa Papohe: 20 jars of wine. Total wine: 40 jars, forty. Hellotos. Daniel agrees.

2. The use of пᴧнᴩоу, from the Greek verb πληρóω, is not usual in this kind of document. Normally, in orders of payment, the Coptic verb † (тɪ), «to give», is used. This is the verb found in the other known orders of payment of wine from this archive, P.BawitClackson 16 and 39-42.

3. єуᴧєɴ. This verb form corresponds to єуɴᴧєɴ, with the literal meaning «who will bring». It is most probably a scribal mistake that has left out the letter ɴ of the future infix.

пᴩоc ᴩоc. This combination is very strange; cf. P.BawitClackson 20, 3. It is only found in P.Lond. Copt. I 1122, which also comes from the Hermopolite.

4. The indiction year, ἰνδ(ικτίωνοϲ) η, corresponds to the orders signed by Daniel, in P.Brux. Bawit 14-16 dated to the 8^th and 9^th indiction years.

5. Below and to the left of initial п remains of writing can be seen belonging to what must have been the original writing of the papyrus. The letters run perpendicularly to those of the main writing, but the fibres are disposed in the same direction as those of the reinforcing strips of the main text. From this fact we may assume that the original document was written across the fibres, and that this must have been in a better condition, since it was this one that was deemed more suitable for reusing. Remains of this original writing can also be seen to the left of lines 8 and 9. Some churches are found in texts from Bawit. A church is among the beneficiaries in the account of wine payments of P.Mon. Apollo 45, where it appears three times. Cf. P.BawitClackson 85, 12, another list of payments, with [єκκᴧ] нcɪᴧǀ cєɴтє in one of the records.

5–6 тєκκλнcɪǀ [ᴧ]. Since the right hand side of papyrus is not fragmented, the ᴧ at the end of the word could have been omitted due to lack of space. However, it might have been written at the beginning of the next line.

6 At the beginning of the line there is a stuck fragment from another papyrus with the letters κоϣc. The letters run along the fibres, just like on main piece of the papyrus, and the patch has been stuck as to fit the line of the main text, but the handwriting and the ink are obviously different (see lines 9-10).

ϰᴩɪcтоᴧɷᴩ̣є̣. Another probable reading could be ϰᴩɪcтоᴧɷ<ᴩ> ọc̣.

7. The more probable reconstruction is [пᴧcо]ɴ ᴧɴоуп This is the usual expression for naming the monks of the Monastery of Apollo; but one could also restore [пϣ]ɴᴧɴоуп; cf. P.Brux.Bawit. 33, 5.

κупє. This could be understood as coming from κнпє «vaulted place, cellar», from ĸύπη or γύπη; cf. Crum (1939) 114. It could refer to one of the cells which were part of the monastery; see P.Mon. Apollo 6; Delattre (2007) 47-48.

8. To the left of the surface, remains of letters belonging to two lines of the original writing (see commentary to l. 5).

9. To the left of the surface, remains of letters belonging to the original writing (cf. commentaries to lines 5 and 8). Further to the right, we find the letters κоφ belonging to a fragment from another papyrus stuck later. This fragment also takes up the beginning of line 10. The letters are level with those in the main text but run across the fibres, contrary to the main piece. The handwriting is different from that of the scribe of the main text and also from the handwriting of the fragment stuck at the beginning of line 6.

10. [† ᴧᴧ]ɴɪнᴧ. The name of the signatory is not entirely preserved since there is a fragment from another papyrus stuck at the beginning (see l. 9), and traces of some letters are visible. Nevertheless, the reconstruction of the signature as Daniel is not in doubt. The handwriting is similar to several signatories from orders of this kind: P.BawitClackson 14-17 and 60, and also in P.Lug. Bat. XXV 78. This signature has been identified by Delattre (2007) 149-150. The comparison among them proves that it is the same hand.

The spelling ϲтнϰє from ϲτοιχεῖ is also used by Daniel in P.BawitClackson 15 and P.Lugd. Bat. XXV 78, whereas he signed the other orders with the common spelling cτοιϰι: cf. P.BawitClackson 14 and 16.