1 On the diplomatic interactions between cities and sovereigns and the role of euergetism in the establishment of cultic honors, see in general Habicht (20173); Gauthier (1985); Bringmann – von Steuben (1995); Kotsidu (2000); Ma (20022). On the difference between the rituals addressed to the rulers as to, or together with, the traditional gods, and those performed to the gods hyper (that is, for) the monarchs, see Jim (2014); Caneva (2016b); Pfeiffer in this volume. In what follows, it will be shown that these religious nuances do not play any role in the funding processes of cultic honors at either the institutional and non-institutional level. On the limited relevance of the grammar of honors for a sociological and economic analysis, see also Paganini in this volume.
2 IGCyr062810 (SEG XVIII 727; SEG L 1639); Marquaille (2003), p. 30.
3 OGIS I 33; SEG IX 112; OGIS I 124; OGIS I 22; SEG XXXIX 1718; Thompson (1973), no. 29.
4 I.Délos 290, lines 129-131 = Kotsidu (2000), no. 136 [E1].
5 IC III, iv 4 = Syll.3 463 = Austin (20062), no. 265; OGIS I 55 = Austin (20062), no. 270; SEG LII 1462 (improved text of SEG XLIX 1426) = Petzl (2002) = Austin (20062), no. 272. In the case of Telmessos the honors were offered to Ptolemy son of Lysimachos, arguably in his role as a Ptolemaic administrator rather than as royal cult.
6 SEG XLII 994 (SEG XLVI 1413) = Austin (20062), no. 267.
7 OGIS I 46 = Austin (20062), no. 120.
8 Syll.3 502 = IG XII 8, 156 = Austin (20062), no. 269.
9 OGIS I 59 = C.Ord. Ptol. 33 = Austin (20062), no. 287.
10 IC III, iv 4, with Viviers (2011), p. 45; but cf. Caneva (2020a), who interprets the genitive “of King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike”, at line 9, as referring to the cultic recipients of the newly-established temenos, not as the owners of the plot of land consecrated by the city.
11 Palagia (2013).
12 Syll.3 390 = Kotsidu (2000) no. 131 [E1] = Austin (20062), no. 256.
13 Within the contemporary Egyptian monetary system the gold: silver ratio was 12: 1 as opposed to the ratio of 10: 1 current elsewhere, see inter alia Robinson (1941), p. 1638. This could imply that the crown was worth 24,000 silver drachmas (4 T) in an Alexandrian context.
14 IG XI 4, 1038 = Kotsidu (2000), no. 131 [E2].
15 Caneva (2016c), p. 188–195.
16 IG XII 6.1, 11 = Kotsidu (2000), no. 179 [E] (Samos); SEG XXXVI 1218 = Kotsidu (2000), no. 293 [E] (Xanthos).
17 Ath. 5.203b. The edition of Kaibel suggested a possible reading of Rhodian currency, but this was dismissed by Rice (1983), p. 131.
18 Ath. 5.203a.
19 Rice (1983), p. 131.
20 Rice (1983), p. 133.
21 Also published as Sel. Pap. II 410.
22 Sel. Pap. II, p. 555, n. b; Bagnall – Derow (2004), p. 200.
23 SB XVI 1, 12404 (Ghoran or Magdola, 147/6 or 136/5).
24 Maresch (2012), p. 72–73; Lorber (2017), p. 21, 46.
25 Lorber (2017), p. 21–22, 46.
26 B 9, lines 254–255, B 10, line 283.
27 P.Tebt. I 61, p. 190, commentary on lines 1–8, and p. 223–224, commentary on line 254.
28 C.Ord. Ptol. 75–76.
29 On the word xenia, see most recently Pfeiffer (2011), p. 198–202. To the examples adduced by Pfeiffer we can add P. Cair. Zen. I 59560 (before 26 December 254) which concerns xenia for the festival of Isis at Alexandria.
30 P. Cair. Zen. I 59075 (Ammonitis, 13 May 257); P. Cair. Zen. V 59821 (Philadelpheia, 27 May 254); P. Cair. Zen. V 59820 (20 February–19 March 253); PSI V 514 (Philadelpheia, 25 April 251); P. Lond. VII 2000 (Alexandria, 20 September–19 October 250). The panēgyris of the Theoi Adelphoi was perhaps biennial rather than annual, see Caneva (2016c), p. 193.
31 P. Lond. VII 2000 (Alexandria, 20 September – 19 October 250).
32 Clarysse – Thompson (2006), p. 157–159.
33 On the wages of soldiers, stone cutters, machimoi, and other workers in third-century Egypt, see Fischer-Bovet – Lorber (2020). For the machimoi, see also Fischer-Bovet (2013), p. 226.
34 Lorber (2017), p. 20–22.
35 Pos. 39 AB, line 2; 116 AB, lines 6–7; 119 AB, line 2; Ath. 7.318d.
36 Paus. 6.16.9, 6.17.3; OGIS I 26-27; IvO 306-307.
37 OGIS I 16; Caneva – Bricault (2019).
38 I.Alex. Ptol. 14.
39 I.Alex. Ptol. 25.
40 P.Petrie III 1, cl. 2 = P.Petrie2 1, 1, especially lines 42–43. Scholars have disagreed about which Berenike was worshipped in this temple.
41 P.Oxy. XXVII, 2465, lines 11–23 = Austin (20062), no. 295; Caneva (2014a), p. 93-103.
42 For the latest corpus of the plaques, see Caneva (2014a), p. 109–115, with addenda in Caneva, in this volume, p. 26, n. 12. On the cult oinochoai, Burr Thompson (1973); Caneva (2014a), p. 104-108.
43 Egyptian Museum 90702 = CPI F0165A (SEG XXVII 1114). The actual location of this contest is disputed. According to Koenen (1977), the Basileia mentioned in the stele took place in the chōra; but cf. Remijsen (2009), p. 258, arguing for a celebration in Alexandria.
44 Koenen (1977), p. 9, 27–28.
45 Koenen (1977), p. 19.
46 Koenen (1977), p. 20.
47 I.Hermoupolis 1 = SB VIII 1, 9735 = CPI F0137.
48 Guéraud (1931), no. 13, p. 36–37.
49 OGIS I 82 = CPI F205A; OGIS I 86 = Austin (20062), no. 281; OGIS II 731 = I.Alex. Ptol. 26.
50 IG XII 2, 527 = Kotsidu (2000), no. 154 [E2]; IG XII 2, 528 = Kotsidu (2000), no. 154 [E3]; IG XII Suppl. 125 = Kotsidu (2000), no. 154 [E4]; IG XII Suppl. 139 = Kotsidu (2000), no. 154 [E5]; Kotsidu (2000), no. 155 [E] = IG XII 2, 498 + IG XII Suppl. 122.
51 Paus. 1.17.2 (Athens); Kotsidu (2000), no. 181 [E] (Samos); IG XII 4,1 61 = Kotsidu (2000), no. 161 [E] (Cos); IG XII 4,1 281 = Kotsidu (2000), no. 162 [E] (Cos); Peristianes (1910), p. 945, no. 34 (Lapethos); I.Salamine XIII 62 (Salamis).
52 I.Prose 40; van Minnen (2000), p. 448. On cultic associations and gymnasia in Ptolemaic Egypt, and for more detailed discussion of the Psenamosis inscription, including its date, see also Paganini in this volume.
53 I.Fayoum II, 103 = SB III, 6157; I.Fayoum II, 104 = SB III, 6158.
54 BGU VI 1256 (Philadelpheia, after 17 October 147 or 14 June 136) = Sel. Pap. II 275.
55 This corpus includes some of the examples cited above but does not include dedications using the hyper formula, which are treated separately in this volume by Pfeiffer.
56 Mitford (1980), p. 235–236; Pilides (2009), p. 60–61. The epithet Adelphe appears in ten inscriptions (I.Kafizin 26, 35, 44, 46, 82a, 83a, 88, 98a, 101a, and 283a), the epithet Philadelphos in only one (no. 100).
57 Jim (2012), p. 15, 19–23.
58 Mitford (1980), p. 256–258; Pilides (2004) and (2009), p. 60–61; Lejeune (2009), p. 309–310.
59 Jim (2012), where no connection with royal cult is suggested. See Paganini in this volume on the methodological risks inherent in assuming a clear-cut separation between professional and religious associations.
60 Cf. Pfeiffer in this volume on the Ptolemies worshiped in Egyptian temples.
61 Thiers (2007), § 2.16, l. 26, p. 79.
62 Thiers (2007), § 2.11, l. 19–20, p. 57.
63 Thiers (2007), § 2.16, l. 26, p. 79.
64 Thiers (2007), § 2.16, l. 27, p. 79.
65 The original capitation tax, the yoke tax, was replaced by the salt tax in 264/3, see Muhs (2005), p. 6, 8; Thompson (2008), p. 31–32.
66 Thiers (2007), p. 121, suggested that gold was a standard of reference but that the subsidy was actually paid in silver.
67 Plin. NH 36.83, cited by Thiers (2007), p. 122.
68 Thiers (2007), p. 122, based on figures in Hier. In Dan. 11.5 and Jos. AJ, 12.175.
69 Schäfer (2011), p. 235–236.
70 For the characteristics of Series 3, see Picard – Faucher (2012), p. 33–38.
71 Gorre (2014).
72 Von Reden (2007), p. 87, 298.
73 For a thorough treatment, see Clarysse – Vandorpe (1998).
74 P.Rev. cl. 36–37.
75 Clarysse – Vandorpe (1998), p. 7, 8–14.
76 Clarysse – Vandorpe (1998), p. 14–17.
77 P.Petr. III 57a (Arsinoites, 3 February 201).
78 Clarysse – Vandorpe (1998), p. 29.
79 P.Rev. col. 31; Clarysse – Vandorpe (1998), p. 25–26.
80 Clarysse – Vandorpe (1998) p. 26.
81 Vandorpe – Clarysse (1997), p. 71.
82 See Lorber (2017).
83 Vandorpe – Clarysse (1997), p. 67, 70–72.
84 See the Appendix. All figures in this paragraph are expressed on the silver standard.
85 There is a possibility that some Theban receipts with high figures may include the eparourion (land tax) along with the akrodruōn or apomoira. Combined receipts are known, but scribes may not always have taken the trouble to specify that two taxes were paid at once. See Clarysse – Vandorpe (1998), p. 31–37 for an ambiguous example.
86 On the status of the land, see Manning (2003), p. 65–90; on the nature of the apomoira on sacred land as attested by demotic sources, see Clarysse – Vandorpe (1998), p. 11–12.
87 Vandorpe – Worp (2013) have, however, documented an effort to convert wasteland into vineyards in the region of Pathyris.
88 Baetens – Depauw (2015), p. 198–199, 202, 210.
89 Vandorpe (2000), p. 195.
90 O.Louvre 112 (Thebes, 118/7); O.Med. Habu 6–9 (Thebes, second to first century BC).
91 P.Petr. III 53p (Tebtunis, 244/3 or 219/8) is a complaint by priests against their lesōnis who owed them 1,086 bronze drachmas and 146 ⅔ artabas wheat and 7½ hin of honey in back pay; they request payment from the personal guarantee he posted upon obtaining the office of lesōnis. One cannot, however, exclude a later date (mid-second century), in which case the monetary sum would be worth only a fraction of its third-century value. P.Oxy. Griffith 14 recto (Oxyrhynchus, 149) is an order of payment by the priests of 17 talents in bronze for a festival. At the probable contemporary silver: bronze ratio of 300: 1, this sum would be equivalent to 340 silver drachmas.
92 T.Cair. JdE 51437 (TM 51160; Pathyris, 104).
93 P. Cair.dem. II 30625 (October or November 79); see Winkler (2010).
94 O.Leid.dem. 60 (Thebes, 234/3); O.Leid.dem. 61 (Thebes, Ptolemaic); P.Tebt. II 281 = Sel. Pap. II 379 (Krokodilonpolis, Arsinoites, 18 March 125); P.Köln VIII 346 (Arsinoites, dated palaeographically to the second half of the second century, but datable to 116/5 or later by the monetary amounts mentioned). The first three are tax receipts, whereas the last is an expense account recording a payment of four drachmas, presumably the temple tax owed by two persons.
95 Thompson (1938).
96 Chauveau (1991), p. 120 n. 3.
97 See Fischer-Bovet – Lorber (2020). Chauveau (1991), p. 120 n. 3, asserted that the monthly payment must have been reckoned on the bronze standard, but this would have been a risible amount.
98 Chauveau (1991), p. 120 n. 3; Migahid (2002).
99 Daily pay for manual laborers c. 180 was 20 to 30 drachmas on the bronze standard, and after 113/2 it was 50 to 80 drachmas on the bronze standard, see Fischer-Bovet – Lorber (2020). It seems unlikely that the monthly commitments of hierodules was equivalent to the daily pay of a manual laborer, or even a fraction thereof.
100 E.g. P.dem. Fouad 2 (Tebtunis, 170–164); see Chauveau (1991), p. 120.
101 P.Gen. II 86 (Bakchias, Arsinoites, 4 December 163); Schubert (1997).
102 Schubert (1997), p. 917–921; Thiers (2002), p. 401.
103 By way of comparison, the syntaxis payments in wheat to the temple of Thebes in the receipts cited in n. 87 were for 41, 41½, 28¾, 21/12, and23/24 artabas of wheat.
104 On the genēmatophylakia, see Bauschatz (2013), p. 291–311.
105 P.Tebt. III 2, 910 (Tebtunis, 162) gives a price of 500 bronze drachmas per artaba, and the silver: bronze ratio at this date was probably 300: 1, see Lorber (2017).
106 Pestman (1993), p. 347.
107 SB I 4638 (135 BC); Lanciers (1991), p. 140.
108 Zaghloul (1991). This document is dated 2 Tybi year 16 and attributed by the editor to Ptolemy IX Soter II, but Ptolemy IX did not have a regnal year 16 in Egypt. A misreading of the demotic text must be suspected.
109 Vandorpe – Vleeming (2017): P.Erbstreit 9 = 10 (Pathyris, 26 April 136), “50 deben of real silver for the burnt offerings of the kings and 50 talents [bronze implied] for yourselves”; P.Erbstreit 13F (Greek translation of the preceding), “to the Crown 1,000 silver drachmas for the burnt offerings [of the kings] and 50 talents to you”; P.Erbstreit 17 = 18 (Pathyris, 30 March 133), “real silver evaluated at 25 deben for the burnt offerings of the kings and to you other real silver evaluated at 25 deben”; P.Erbstreit 19 (Pathyris, 30 March and 25 May 133), “real silver evaluated at 20 deben to the burnt offerings of the kings and other real silver evaluated at 20 + [5] deben to the above persons”.
110 Perhaps the earliest use of this phrase is in UPZ I 31 (Memphis, 28 December 162), where the drachmas are sacred to the king and the queen.
111 20 drachmas: UPZ I 131 (Memphis, 23 December 162); 100 drachmas: P. L.Bat. XIX 7B (Pathyris, 18 February 109); P.Gen. I2 20 (Pathyris, 18 February 109); P.Grenf. II 26 (Pathyris, 10 December 103); P.Grenf. II 30 (Pathyris, 10 December 102); P.Grenf. II 33 (Pathyris, 4 November 100). 120 drachmas: BGU VI 1260 (Pathyris, 19 February 121); P.Adl. G14 (Pathyris, 29 October 100). 160 drachmas: BGU III 998 (Pathyris, 17 December 101). 200 drachmas: P.Grenf. I 27 (Krokodilonpolis, Pathyrites, 27 February 109); P.Grenf. II 25 (Pathyris, 11 September 103); P. Grenf. II 28 (Pathyris, 11 December 103). 300 drachmas: P.Adl. G2 (Pathyris, 22 August 124); P.Tor. Amen. 5 (Thebes) and P.Tor. Amen. 7 (Thebes, 119–117); P.Tor. Amen. 8 (Thebes, 20 November–19 December 116); P. Lond. VII 2191 (Pathyris, 27 November 116); P.Stras. II 83 (Pathyris, 7 April 114). 400 drachmas: P.Tor. Choach. 9 (Thebes, 13 September 126). 1,200 drachmas: SB XVIII 13168 (Pathyris, 23 March 123).
112 Pestman (1981), p. 74.
113 P. Lille.dem. I, 29.
114 P. Lille.dem. II, 98.
115 P.StanfordGreen.dem. 21 (Bakchias, shortly after 192).
116 De Cenival (1977). The amount is expressed in demotic as 2/3 1/12 kite.
117 I.ThSy. 302 (Sahel Island, 152–145). On the Basilistai, see also Paganini in this volume.
118 I.ThSy. 303 = OGIS I 130 (Sahel Island, 142–124 BC).
119 I.ThSy. 190 (142–124 BC).
120 IGLS III 2, 1184 = OGIS I 245 = Austin (20062), no. 207; SEG VIII 33 and VIII 96; Macdowell (1935), p. 258; van Nuffelen (2001).
121 Stucky (2005), Gr4 = BÉ (2006), no. 461.
122 I.Tyr II 1.
123 I.Tyr II 19.
124 Gatier (2004), p. 139-144, no. 2; BÉ (2005), no. 517.
125 SEG XIX 904.
126 SEG XLIV 1392; Fleischer (1991), p. 69–70.
127 IK Est.Or. 103 = OGIS I 253.
128 Two Seleucid governors of Uruk, Anu-uballit / Nikarchos in 244 and Anu-uballit / Kephalon in 201, each dedicated the rebuilt or refounded temple of Anu “for the life of the king (s)”, see YOS I 52; Falkenstein (1941), p. 6–8; Sherwin-White – Kuhrt (1993), p. 200, 202. In nine acts of manumission the emancipated slaves are dedicated to traditional gods for the salvation of the king and members of the royal family, see IK Est.Or. 280 = SEG XLIX 1973 (Gurgan, Hyrcania), YBC 11633 (Uruk), IK Est.Or. 189–194 and 197 (from Susa, under its poliad name Seleucia on the Eulaios). Two of these acts of manumission were dedicated by cavalrymen and the others by dedicants with Greek names. See Caneva (2016b) on the role played by the hyper formula in these inscriptions, in relation to the protection of the new status of the emancipated slaves.