It has been frequently remarked that the fourth century AD saw a number of changes to the administration of the Egyptian nomes, and in particular to patterns of landholding¹. Within the context of this fourth century administrative climate, there is a little known administrative official who warrants further examination. The scribe of the pagus, ὁ τοῦ πάγου γραμματεύc, only appears in the following five texts: P.Macq. inv. 566 (mid IV, Oxyrhynchos?)²; P.Oxy. LX 4091 (352, Oxyrhynchos); SB III 6294 (= P.Freib. II 11; 336, Oxyrhynchos); PSI V 451 (after 341, Oxyrhynchos); and P.Oxy. LXVII 4607 (362/363, Oxyrhynchos). Besides the relatively few attestations of this office, the similarity of the date and provenance of these texts is immediately apparent. Of the five texts, three are dated securely to 336, 352 and 362/363, while the others are certainly from some point in the fourth century based on palaeographic and contextual criteria. Furthermore, all but the Macquarie papyrus can be assigned to the Oxyrhynchite nome. Before considering this proximity further, it is necessary to briefly consider what can be learnt about the functions of the office from the texts themselves.

Of the five texts, P.Macq. inv. 566 is perhaps the most informative on its own. This papyrus contains the last seven lines of a petition from Aurelius Areion, a prophet, to an unnamed official³. As this papyrus has not been published elsewhere, a preliminary transcription is reproduced here.

ε̣ faint traces [………………]…[…]…………………

ἐκείνουc δὲ κ̣α̣ρποῦcθ̣α̣ι̣. τούτ̣ου χάριν τήν̣δ̣ε̣ τὴν ἀξ̣ίω̣cι[ν]

προcφέρω τῇ cῇ εὐcθενείᾳ, ἀξιῶν ἐπιcτ̣α̣λ̣ῆναι τòν̣ τ̣ο̣ῦ̣

πάγ̣ο̣υ γραμματέα Π̣α̣μοῦνιν ὑπεύθυνον ὄντα τῇ παραδόcει

5 τῶν γηδίων, ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτοψίαν παραγ̣ε̣ν̣έ̣c̣θ̣α̣ι̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ τ̣α̣ύ̣τ̣[ην]

μέτρ̣οιc περιβαλεῖν καὶ ἐκ πλήρουc μοι π̣α̣ραδοῦ̣ν̣α̣ι̣ τὴν

γὴν ἀκολούθωc τοῖc τοῦ κήνc̣ου βιβλίοιc. Αὐρήλιοc

Ἀρείων προφήτηc ἐπιδέδωκα.

… but to enjoy the use of those things. For this purpose I put forward this petition to Your Mightiness, asking that orders be given to the scribe of the pagus, Pamounis, who is responsible for the transfer of the plots of land, to be present for the purpose of the inspection and to measure this and to give to me, in full, the land in accordance with the books of the census. Aurelius Areion, prophet, has presented (this petition).

It would seem that there has been a dispute about the boundaries of the land, following which Areion asks that the scribe of the pagus be sent to inspect the land and to return it to him on the basis of a census that had taken place at some point in the past, most likely that conducted in 297/298⁴. It is noteworthy that the scribe of the pagus is specifically stated to be responsible for the παράδοcιc, « transfer », of land.

P.Oxy. LX 4091, a letter from both the scribe of the first pagus and a γεωμέτρηc to the strategus of the Oxyrhynchite nome, presents a similar picture to the Macquarie papyrus. The scribe and γεωμέτρηc write that they were ordered to make a transfer of land consequent on a petition presented to the strategus by Aurelios Theon⁵. A number of points are of particular interest. Firstly, the scribe was subordinate to the strategus in this text. Secondly, the use of παράδοcιc for « transfer » in line 9, specifically relating to the function of the scribe of the pagus, builds on the picture presented by P.Macq. inv. 566, as does the presence of the γεωμέτρηc with the scribe at the inspection of the land. Finally, the presence of the words κῆνcoc in line 15 and ἀναμέτρηcιc in line 17 is reminiscent of the terminology (6: μέτροιc περιβαλεῖν; 7: κῆνcoc) of the Macquarie papyrus. It is unfortunate that this section of the text is too damaged to tell whether the use of « census » here is similar to its use in the Macquarie text or whether the « measurement » refers specifically to the acts of the scribe of the pagus and the surveyor.

In the third document, SB III 6294, one Aurelia Thaesis from the village of Phoboou in the fifth pagus petitions the public advocate of the Oxyrhynchite nome. Thaesis is having trouble with her neighbours, who have committed physical abuse against her tenants; the petition chiefly seeks punishment for the aggressors. It is of interest here that, in the preamble to her complaint, Thaesis mentions a previous petition to the praefectus concerning the boundaries and transferral of her land: γῆc μου πολλῷ χρόνῳ ὑποκλεπτομένηc, ὑπὲ̣ρ ἧc ἐξ ὔκοθεν (l. οἴκοθεν) τὰ εὐcεβῆ τελέcματα ὑπομένω, ἀνήνεγκα περὶ ἀφοριcμοῦ καὶ παραδόcεωc ταύτηc̣ τῇ ἐπαρχεικῇ ἐξουcίᾳ καὶ ἀκoλoύθωc τoῖc προcταχθεῖcι παρεδόθη μοι ἀκoλoύθωc πρocφωνῇ Τιτόου γραμματέωc τοῦ πάγου [κ]αὶ τῶν ῥ̣[ιπ]α̣ρ̣[ίων…]..[…δημοcί]ου γεωμέτρου⁶. It seems that Thaesis had submitted a previous petition to the praefectus concerning a boundary dispute. Presumably her neighbours were infringing on the land and following her petition she received a report from the scribe of the pagus, the riparii and the public surveyor, whereupon she regained her land and moved to rent it out in the following year. Her neighbours, probably unhappy with the verdict, then cause the trouble which is the subject of the present petition.

Given that we do not know who this previous petition was submitted to, this document need not complicate the assumption that the scribe was subordinate to the strategus, as was the case in P.Oxy. LX 4091. On two occasions, Thaesis also takes pains to mention her tax liability⁷. In the first instance, she claims to have continued to pay taxes on land which was being infringed upon, and in the second that the prefect should heed her petition so that she can meet her tax obligation. This is significant because it may indicate the importance of the function performed by the scribe of the pagus and consequently why the office was instituted. Note again that, as in the previous documents, the term παράδοcιc (8) is used in relation to land and the functions of the scribe of the pagus. Of further interest is the involvement of both the scribe and the γεωμέτρηc as in P.Oxy. LX 4091, and a specific reference to boundaries (7: ἀφοριcμόc in relation to the scribe of the pagus, a connection which is only assumed in the other texts.

The final two texts are the two fragments published as PSI V 451 and P.Oxy. LXVII 4607, which both mention one Horion, scribe of the fourth pagus. PSI V 451 is from a councillor of Alexandria, Aurelius Ammonianus, to the governor of Augustamnica concerning a petition made against Horion regarding the παράδοcιc of some lands. This text is quite damaged, and consequently no new information can be taken from it regarding the functions of the scribe. We can, however, note the presence of παράδοcιc (10). Finally, the same Horion scribe of the fourth pagus appears in P.Oxy. LXVII 4607⁸. This document is a list of municipal wine contributions for the military and consequently not particularly informative on the duties of the office.

It is clear from the texts that the scribe of the pagus functioned primarily in one area; land disputes. His involvement would presumably be as follows: once a petition concerning a disputed boundary had been submitted, the scribe would be ordered to go to the area in question with a γεωμέτρηc in order to inspect and measure the land. The presence of the surveyor in P.Oxy. LX 4091 and SB III 6294 indicates that the scribe’s purpose was not the measuring of the land. Rather, the evidence of the texts suggests that the scribe of the pagus was to compare the findings of the surveyor with the public records of property holdings for his pagus and make a report concerning who was legally entitled to the disputed land. This is most clearly seen in both P.Macq. inv. 566, when Aurelius Areion asks that the land be given to him ἀκολούθωc τoῖc τòυ κήνcου βιβλίοιc, and SB III 6294, in which Aurelia Thaesis writes that she is renting out her land consequent on the report of the scribe of the pagus. It is to this process, specifically the checking of land ownership in the records and the subsequent report on the findings, that the forms of παράδοcιc, which appear in all the documents except the list of wine contributions, must refer.

This «transferral» then, is the primary function of the scribe of the pagus evidenced by the papyri. It is evident from his title and the texts that the scribe was only responsible for his pagus and not the entire nome, but it should not be concluded that the office was so limited in scope as to deal only with land disputes. There is a good case for arguing that the scribe of the pagus would likely have been responsible, not only for checking the records in cases of dispute, but also for the regular upkeep of the land register of his pagus. This supposition is supported when one considers which official was performing these duties before the fourth century.

The illegal expansion of boundaries is an act technically termed παρορίζεcθαι⁹. Referring to this act in documents from the second and early third centuries, such as BGU II 616 (late II/III) and P.Ross. Georg. II 21 (before 155/156), Taubenschlag demonstrates that in these centuries the κωμογραμματεύc and ὁριοδείκτηc performed the duties which, as shown in the texts above, were performed by the scribe of the pagus and the γεωμέτρηc in the fourth century Oxyrhynchite nome. The κωμογραμματεύc temporarily disappears from view in the middle of the third century; the last securely dated attestation to the office from Oxyrhynchos is P.Oxy. XLII 3047 (AD 245). The first attestation of the scribe of the pagus, however, is not until 336 and it is unclear who checked the land records in cases of dispute in the meantime.

One possibility is the κωμάρχηc, who is commonly considered to be the replacement for the κωμογραμματεύc. Lewis, for example, describes the situation as such, although he qualifies this statement by adding «in most places», and Derda argues the κωμάρχηc «must have assumed a greater part of his duties»¹⁰. Borkowski and Hagedorn argue a similar situation for the Arsinoite nome. Although they argue that in this nome the briefly attested ἀμφοδοκωμογραμματεύc followed directly from the κωμογραμματεύc with the κωμάρχηc taking over after that¹¹. The situation is more complex than a simple name change. Indeed, as Bonneau has pointed out, the κωμάρχηc and κωμογραμματεύc are attested simultaneously in the third century, albeit in different nomes¹². Likewise in the fourth century Oxyrhynchite nome, the κωμάρχηc and the scribe of the pagus – who, we have established, was also performing functions of the κωμογραμματεύc – are attested simultaneously¹³. The κωμάρχηc, then, is unlikely to have taken on the role of the κωμογραμματεύc in relation to boundary disputes, and a preliminary search through the papyri has not revealed any documents which indicate otherwise.

Another possibility is suggested by P.Wisc. II 86 (244-246). This petition, addressed to the δεκάπρωτοι, concerns land which has been incorrectly recorded in the village register. The petitioners ask that the δεκάπρωτοι be accompanied by the πραγματικόc and the ὁριοδείκτηc when a personal inspection is made and that the latter two officials make an accurate measurement of the land.

There are, then, three officials connected with land inspection and measurement in this document of which one, the ὁριοδείκτηc, was certainly not performing the functions of the scribe of the pagus. The δεκάπρωτοι were clearly connected in some way to the measurement and inspection of land and their attested dates, 242-302, fill the gap in our knowledge well¹⁴. The content of this petition, however, shows that their duties in relation to boundaries and those of the scribe of the pagus do not directly overlap. Rather, in this document it is the village πραγματικόc who is asked to accompany the ὁριοδείκτηc in the manner Taubenschlag demonstrated the κωμογραμματεύc had, whereas the δεκάπρωτοι are the recipients of the petition as the strategus was in P.Oxy. LX 4091¹⁵.

Furthermore, it was the πραγματικόc who incorrectly recorded the land in the first place, further strengthening this official’s ties with the village land register¹⁶. As a term, however, πραγματικόc means « official » generally and can often mean κωμογραμματεύc specifically, of which either usage is not well attested beyond the middle of the third century¹⁷. This avenue leaves us no better off for identifying the immediate predecessor of the scribe. Visibly, the administrative changes of the third century that saw a departure from the κωμογραμματεύc were not straightforward. Curiously, it is clear that these changes were occurring at different speeds and in different manners in different nomes.

The κωμογραμματεύc was thus a predecessor of the scribe of the pagus, if not the immediate one. The presence of κωμογραμματεῖc in the fourth century documentation, including from Oxyrhynchos, is not a hurdle for this supposition, as Derda rightly argues that such attestations bear no relation to the second and third century κωμογραμματεύc¹⁸. It is demonstrable that, at least in the Ptolemaic period, the κωμογραμματεύc was responsible for the upkeep of the cadastre, that is to say, the register of real property in the area around his village¹⁹. It is very likely that it was to some form of this cadastre that the scribe of the pagus was referring in the cases of dispute evidenced above.

There are two other possible sources for the records which the scribe would have used in these circumstances. Of these, the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήcεων is the least likely: it was a nome level records office and it did not have an «immediate concern» with the cadastre, which we have established was the responsibility of the κωμογραμματεύc²⁰. In addition it was already in decline at the beginning of the fourth century²¹. In contrast, the cadastre must have still existed in some form in the fourth century, as it was essential for ascertaining property rights, taxation rates, mortgages and so on, and was more locally orientated than the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήcεων.

P.Macq. inv. 566, however, opens up a new possibility by specifically referring to the scribe of the pagus checking the «books of the census». Given that the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήcεων was in decline in this period, it is possible that the cadastre, which had previously been the responsibility of the κωμογραμματεύc, was likewise in a state of disrepair. If this was the case, the 297/298 census would have provided the most accurate record of the state of property holdings at the time. To still be relevant in the 340s, however, these records must have been continually updated to keep track of the many changes to ownership and land category that would surely have occurred in the decades between our documents and the census. In consequence it is unlikely that these « books » bore much resemblance to their original form; yet a foundation on the census records could well be the reason the census is referred to so many years after it had been carried out.

If it is accepted that the census documents formed the basis of the land register used by the scribe of the pagus, we might expect to see some evidence of the systematic updating of these documents. The closest example is P.Cornell 20, which comes from early in the century (302) and a different nome. This document contains eleven declarations of land in eleven columns, all concerning land around the village of New Ptolemaios in the Arsinoite nome. Boak and Youtie describe it as «a verification of existing records by incorporating all changes in ownership and in the production categories of the land»²². If the scribe of the pagus was responsible for the land register, this is presumably the kind of document that he would have consulted²³.

Considering that the κωμάρχηc is generally thought to have replaced the κωμογραμματεύc, it is unusual that both this official and the scribe of the pagus, who also appears to have been fulfilling functions of the κωμογραμματεύc, appear in fourth century Oxyrhynchos. Based on the limited evidence available, it is difficult to say why this might be so; it is however conceivable that the nome government wanted greater efficiency in managing the land registers. Up-to-date records of real property were an issue of critical interest to both the central government, because of its relevance in relation to the correct assessment of tax, and to the populace, because it provided legal security for the transfer of such property²⁴. The details of landed property for tax purposes must have changed frequently: not only were farmers often putting in reports to change the status of their land, say from inundated to unproductive, but property would have changed owners or lessees quite frequently through sales or inheritance. To keep track of these changes would have been a huge task and, as the κωμάρχηс had other duties, it is possible that the scribe of the pagus was a seemingly short-lived attempt to make this task more manageable²⁵.

Furthermore, whereas the κωμογραμματεύc had been responsible for an area which was larger than the limits of a village, and may have had more than one village in the area of his jurisdiction, the κωμάρχηc was responsible for one village at the most, sometimes even two or more per village²⁶. There would therefore have been a greater number of κωμάρχαι than there had been κωμογραμματεῖc. If the κωμάρχηc had indeed been managing the land register prior to the institution of the scribe of the pagus, the combination of so many reports at the nome level would have placed greater strain on the record office of the nome capital. The institution of the scribe of the pagus could therefore have been an attempt to reduce this burden by managing the land records on a larger administrative scale than the village, thereby reducing the amount of work to be done at the nome level. It is thus conceivable that the demonstrable importance of the land registers and the monumental task in maintaining them, combined with a desire for a more manageable system than the κωμάρχηc could provide, were primary motivators for the establishing of the scribe of the pagus in the Oxyrhynchite nome.

Functionality aside, perhaps the most interesting aspect of the scribe of the pagus is that this official appears to have existed only in the Oxyrhynchite nome, and only for a few decades at that. Why this should be the case is not an easy question to answer. The fourth century, like the third, was a time of administrative change for Egypt. The institution of the pagi in 307/308 is one obvious change that stands out as a possible catalyst for the creation of this office, yet this does not explain why the first attestation appears only in 336, nor why the office is only attested in the Oxyrhynchite nome when the pagi were introduced throughout Egypt.

The short date-span and restricted provenance suggest that the scribe of the pagus was something of an experiment by the government of the Oxyrhynchite nome, an attempt to try to find the most efficient way to manage its land register. Interestingly, the startlingly brief period in which the scribe of the pagus is documented is not without parallel. The office of the ἀμφοδοκωμογραμματεύc is attested from 219 to 235, some sixteen years compared to the twenty-seven for the scribe of the pagus. Furthermore, it appears only in villages from the Arsinoite nome and appears to be fulfilling functions previously performed by the κωμογραμματεύc²⁷. The similarity between the two cases is striking, the only discrepancy being the hundred years or so between their creation.

On the assumption that both the ἀμφοδοκωμογραμματεύc and the scribe of the pagus existed in only one nome, the autonomy of individual nomes must be considered. The individuality of the nomes is highlighted by Derda’s recent work on the Arsinoite nome, which details many ways in which that nome was unique in relation to its administrative makeup²⁸. The papyri do not give evidence as to who, at the nome level, had the authority to establish entirely new officials.

An interesting possibility, however, is the boule. The nome metropoleis were given boulai at the beginning of the third century in an attempt to divert some of the burden of local administration away from the central government. The problem is, however, that the boulai were primarily concerned with tax collection and contributions for the military and nothing suggests that they had the authority to create an entirely new office. Furthermore, evidence suggests that in the fourth century the central government was restricting the authority of the boule, making it even less likely that they had the authority to establish the scribe of the pagus²⁹.

The only other possibility is a representative of the central government of the nome such as the logistes or strategus. It is not easy to comment on the degree of autonomy that the nome governments exercised in relation to their administration; however the increasingly distinct differences in nome administration in the third and fourth centuries certainly warrants further examination.

What can be said is that the scribe of the pagus appears briefly in the Oxyrhynchite nome in the middle of the fourth century, between 336 and 363. In function, the scribe performed duties specifically relating to the «transfer» of land in cases of dispute, but was quite possibly also responsible for the upkeep of the public land register for his pagus. It seems likely that this office was created to help fulfil the host of duties performed by the κωμογραμματεύc in the second and third centuries, in conjunction with other officials such as the κωμάρχηc. Interestingly, it is clear from the manner in which the κωμογραμματεύc was replaced that the changes which brought about the scribe of the pagus were already initiated in the third century. What is also clear from this evidence is that different nomes were replacing the κωμογραμματεύc with different officials and at different speeds, suggesting a marked degree of autonomy on the part of the nome in relation to its own administration. The scribe of the pagus should be seen not only as a part – albeit a brief one – of the management of landholdings, but as an indicator of the climate of administrative change prevailing in the fourth century.