^* See especially De Visscher, F., RIDA ³, 6, 1959, pp. 179–207Google Scholar ‘Le Jardin de Mousa’; see also id. Chron. d'Ég. 35, 1960, pp. 207–277 ‘L'Énigme du mot καρπιστής’, which reproduces the views on this word already expressed in his previous article. Unless expressly stated, our references are to the first article.

¹ RIDA ³ 6, 1959, 201 f.

² cf. SEG XVIII, 646, ad loc.

³ See Hirschfeld, Die kaiserliche Beamten,² 352 ff.; Plaumann, P-W, s.v. Idios Logos, cols. 901–2.

⁴ See PFouad, Inv. 211 (publ. BIFAO, 41, 1942, 43–73), col. I, lines 9–19 (for the regnal year, pp. 56–7). The natural assumption that Lysimachus, who already appears as Idios Logos in A.D. 69 (col. I, line 9), held the office continually for twenty years is apparently contradicted by the existence of an Idios Logos, Ulpius (?) Barbarus, mentioned in PRyl. 598 of year 6 of Vespasian (A.D. 73).

⁵ The determination of the reading disposes of De Visscher's suggestion (o.c, 182); ὡ[ροίῳ]; cf. JEA 46, 1960, 95, no. (8).

⁶ Although the Idios Logos held a regular court at the corwentus (see Wilcken, Archiv, 4, 408 ff., and, for an excellent example of procedure at the conventual court before the Idios Logos see PFouad, as quoted in note 4), we see no reason to change our mind regarding the casual nature of the present occasion.

⁷ The fullest discussion of legal proceedings before the Idios Logos is still that of Meyer, P.M., Festschrift Hirschfeld (1903), 149 ff.Google Scholar The most detailed account of such proceedings is that concerning Nestnephis, for which see Plaumann, , SB Berl. Akad., 1918 (17), 44–52Google Scholar, who associates and analyses the various documents (more briefly, Meyer, l.c., 150 f.); other examples are MChrest. 91 and 372 (col. VI), and the Fouad papyrus quoted in nn. 4 and 6.

⁸ Clause 1 (quoted, F–N, 125, n. 45) also appears to regulate not only the claims of the fisc in respect of tombs, but also apparently those of private creditors.

⁹ For a bibliography see De Visscher, RIDA I, 1948, 199; cf. Riccobono, S., Jr, Il Gnomon dell' Idios Logos (1950), 101 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The nature of the transaction depends on the verb at the beginning of line 2, which is imperfectly preserved: for discussions of the various supplements proposed see De Visscher and Riccobono, ll.cc.

¹¹ Although it is disputed whether the transactions referred to in clause 2 of the Gnomon are made by creditors or by those entitled to the tomb, the phrase in the inscription (lines 14–15), προφάσει μισθώσεως, seems to exclude creditors, who would have no motive for resorting to such a device.

¹² See F-N, 125 ff.; cf. Visscher, De, RIDA ³ 6, 1959, 190 ff.Google Scholar (cf. below, p. 159).

¹³ For such cases see MChrest. 68 (from the Nestnephis-dossier: a ὑπόμνημα of Nestnephis to the Idios Logos asking to be heard at the conventual session, ‘μέ[χρ]ι οὗ…[ἀπ]ολ[υθ]ῶι τῆς συκοφαντῷδου κα[τηγορί]ας’); ibid. 372, proceedings before the Idios Logos clearly brought by an informer, cf. Meyer, o.c., 150 ff. The locus classicus on such delations in Egypt is the Edict of Tib. Iul. Alexander (OGIS 669, etc.), lines 37 ff. (cf. Lewis, N., JJP 9–10, 1956, 117–25Google Scholar).

¹⁴ See F-N, 126 f.

¹⁵ o.c., 184 ff. This claim is presumably not to be taken as applying to all aspects of the foundation, since De Visscher would not maintain that Roman tombs in Egypt were governed by exactly the same legal principles as non-Roman tombs. His own interpretation elsewhere (RIDA I, 1948, 211) of clause 2 of the Gnomon rests precisely on the assumption that the régime of Roman tombs in Egypt did not differ significantly from that of Roman tombs in Italy, but did differ from that of Greco-Egyptian tombs.

¹⁶ cf. Lewald, , Beiträge z. Kenntn. des röm.-äg. Grundbuchrechts (1909), 29Google Scholar, n. 4.

¹⁷ RIDA ³ 6, 1959, 193.

¹⁸ cf. JEA 46, 1960, 95, no. (9). We need only note in passing the suggestion of A. d'Ors (Stud. et Doc. 26, 1960, 520) that in lines 21–2 the readin should be Πομπω(ν)|ίου. This is in open contradiction of the inscription, which has a fully visible eta in the last position in the line.

¹⁹ o.c., 203 ff.

²⁰ ibid., 196 f.

²¹ Stud. et Doc. 13/14, 1947/8, 278 ff.; cf. F-N, 126, n. 53.

²² RIDA I, 1948, 209.

²³ F–N, 119–210.