MAHER A. EISSA A Letter or an Exercise (O.NMEC Inv. 107)? The National Museum of Egyptian Civilization (NMEC) is the new museum located in Cairo near the archaeological site of Egypt’s first Islamic capital, “al-Fusṭāṭ,” not far from the Coptic quarter called “Old Cairo” (1). The NMEC has an important collection of ostraca, written in different scripts and languages (hieroglyphs, hieratic, demotic, Greek, Coptic and Arabic), among which there are hundreds of Coptic ostraca. These ostraca came from archaeological missions (2), museums (Egyptian Museum in Cairo, The Grand Egyptian Museum (3), etc...), and seizures (4). O.NMEC Inv. 107 (331) (5) comes from a seizure, which includes 40 ostraca, among which are two written in Greek, and two other puzzling pieces (6). O.NMEC Inv. 107 is a Coptic letter. The sender (Ignatius) presents himself as a poor person and asks for concrete help from the addressee. Most of the dialectal elements would suggest a Theban provenance. The formulae and the handwriting indicate a date in the 7th or 8th century. The text has at least three interesting features. The first is its paleography, as the handwriting of the scribe is very similar to the handwriting of literary texts. The second one is linguistic, due to the surprising presence of a word only attested in the L4 dialect in an otherwise Sahidic text. The third point concerns the interpretation of the ostracon: is it a real letter or rather a draft or an exercise? Indeed, the letter seems to be complete, but there is no closing formula and no address, and the name of the addressee is not mentioned. However, the latter point would not be an objection, since the addressee bears an ecclesiastical or (1) The NMEC, still under construction, will be the first museum of civilization in the Arab world; it will present a comprehensive view of Egyptian civilization from prehistory to the present day, taking a multidisciplinary thematic approach in order to highlight Egypt’s tangible and intangible heritage. (2) University of Brussels mission in Thebes, Milano-Pisa Universities mission in Thebes, French mission in the Ramses III temple, SCA excavations, etc. (3) The Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) is still under construction; it is located in Giza near the Pyramids, in the beginning of the Alexandria - Cairo desert road. (4) These objects were seized by police forces at the borders and inside Egypt as well. (5) 331 is an old number; could it be the inventory number of an excavation mission? (6) I thought first they could be Carian, but they are not. According to personal communication with Ignacio-Javier Adiego, Professor at the Barcelona University and specialist of Carian language, who identified their source, they are fakes. Their story will be the subject of another article. Chroniqued’Égypte LXXXIX (2014), fasc. 177 – doi: 10.1484/J.CDE.5.102520 197 ÉGYPTE CHRÉTIENNE ET ARABE monastic title that could be sufficient to identify the person, so that we can imagine the sender delivering the letter himself. More puzzling is the fact that the text breaks in the middle of a sentence, while the ostracon itself is not broken. A possible explanation would be to consider the text as an exercise. Since the hand is literary and well trained, it could have been written by a copyist of manuscripts (7). Apparently acquainted with some habits of copying religious manuscripts, he chose to write a letter, that is to say a text of daily life, not a literary text. However, by contrast with Frange, who was not only a copyist of books, but also very much at ease with the formulae, clichés and all the epistolary rhetoric, this scribe seems to have had little experience in this field. First, he made several mistakes, some of them corrected (letters inserted afterwards above the line), some of them not corrected (ⲉⲗⲁⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ, ϩⲓ$ⲥⲉⲓ$ⲱⲧⲁⲧⲟⲥ). Second, his use of the formulae sounds unusual (see n. l. 1-3). Third, he did not finish his letter. Was he practising some exercise? Was he himself the poor person writing to the bishop (or to some important monastic character) and asking for money, without knowing very well how to do it? Or had he been asked by the poor man to write for him, in his capacity as a copyist, but with a unsatisfactory result which led him to stop before the end? O.NMEC Inv. 107 FIG. 1 11,5 × 14,4 × 0,8 cm Thebes (?) 7th/8th c. The pottery is brown with a red slip. The text is written on the outside. A small part of the right side is broken, with a loss of some letters. All the lines are carefully left-justified. The script is a large, fairly competent majuscule, belonging to the “thick and thin style,” or “Biblical majuscule.” The use of the comma is remarkable. It seems that this sign has a dividing function: it is used between sentences (l. 7), between words (l. 3, 8) and even between syllables (l. 3) (8). The diaeresis is found throughout the text on all types of ⲓ: simple in ⲉⲅⲛⲁⲇⲓ$ⲟⲥ (l. 4), diphthongal in ⲥϩⲁⲓ$ (l. 4) and ⲛⲁⲓ$ (l. 10), or consonantal in ϩⲓ$ⲥⲉⲓ$ⲱⲧⲁ[ⲧⲟⲥ] (l. 3). It is also employed in a Greek word ⲉⲗⲁⲭⲣⲓ$ⲥⲧⲟⲥ (l. 2). The superlinear stroke is used in the text according to its classical use Ⲙⲡⲁϣⲁϫⲉ (l. 1), etc. In addition there is perhaps a marker resembling an accent in ⲉⲅⲛⲁⲇⲓ$ⲟⲥ (l. 4). Most striking (7) See for instance O.TT29, 177, written by the monk Frange, where the hand is not his usual hand, but is much closer to a bookhand, quite similar to the one of O.NMEC 107; see: A. BOUD’HORS & C. HEURTEL, LesOstracacoptesdelaTT29.AutourdumoineFrangé (Brussels, 2010), vol. 1, p. 150. — On the exercises, see K.-H. BRUNNE, “Schooldays in the Fayoum in the First Millennium,” in: G. GABRA (ed.), ChristianityandMonasticismintheFayoumOasis (Cairo, 2005), pp. 33-35. (8) Note that, in l. 6, ⲡⲉⲥ, ⲛⲁⲩ, the comma is in conflict with the word division. 198 A LETTER OR AN EXERCISE (O.NMEC INV. 107)? is the presence of a long superlinear stroke on ⲡⲚⲀ (l. 5): it seems that the scribe confused ⲡⲛⲁ, “the mercy” with the nomensacrum for ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ. As the mistake commented on just above (n. 8) concerning the comma, this makes one think that the scribe did not really understand what he was writing. To sum up, the handwriting displays several features typical of literary hands, which leads one to identify the writer as a copyist of manuscripts. FIG. 1. — O.NMEC Inv. 107 (© National Museum of Egyptian Civilization – Photo: Maher A. Eissa) The text is written in Sahidic with some dialectal (or non-standard) variations. ⲛ is not assimilated to ⲙ before a labial in ϩⲛ ⲡⲉⲥⲛⲁⲩ (l. 6). ⲕ and ϭ are interchangeable in ⲕⲁϫⲃ for ϭⲱϫⲃ (l. 3), Ⲣ ⲡⲏⲗⲕⲉ for ⲡⲗϭⲉ (l. 9), which could be a Theban feature (9). The vowel ⲁ is used instead of ⲟ in ⲕⲁϫⲃ (l. 3) and ϩⲁⲓⲧⲉ (l. 9), which is also a frequent trend in Theban texts. ⲉ is used for ⲓ and ⲇ for ⲧ in ⲉⲅⲛⲁⲇⲓ$ⲟⲥ (l. 4). Line 8 contains several interesting lexical features, especially the first attestation in a Sahidic text of ⲁϩⲁⲛ, a word used in dialect L4 (see commentary line 8) (10). Except for the last one, all the linguistic features point to the Theban area. (9) Cf. P.Bal.I, p. 95 (§67B), p. 96 (§73), p. 147 (§12); CRUM,Dict. 90a and 801a. As Paul E. Kahle mentioned, “nearly all the non-literary examples are likewise from Thebes” (P.Bal.I, p. 147). (10) L4 is one of the L (lycopolitan) varieties, namely the dialect of the Manichaean texts. Cf. R. KASSER, “A Standard System of Sigla for Referring to the Dialects of Coptic,” JCoptS 1 (1990), p. 148; for more details about this dialect see P. NAGEL, “Lycopolitan (or Lyco-Diospolitan or Subakhmimic),” in: TheCopticEncyclopedia8(New York, 1991), pp. 151-159. I got the information about ⲁϩⲁⲛ through private discussion with Dr. Anne Boud’hors and Prof. Dr. Wolf-Peter Funk, who kindly provided me with a list of occurrences from his own concordance. 199 ÉGYPTE CHRÉTIENNE ET ARABE ⳨ ϩⲁⲑⲉ, ⲙⲉⲛ Ⲙⲡⲁϣⲁϫ[ⲉ] Ⲛⲛⲉⲗⲁⲭⲣⲓ$ⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ [ⲉϥ-] ⲕⲁϫⲃ, Ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ,ϩⲓ$ⲥⲉⲓ$ⲱⲧ\ⲁ/[ⲧⲟⲥ] ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲉⲅⲛⲁⲇⲓ$ⲟⲥ ⲉϥ\ⲥ/ϩⲁⲓ$ ⲛ[ⲁⲕ] 5 ϫⲉ ⲁⲣⲓ$ ⲡⲚⲀ ⲛⲄϯ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲧⲏⲣ[ⲙⲥ?] ⲛⲁⲓ$ ϩⲛ ⲡⲉⲥ, ⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛⲧⲏⲣⲙ [?] ⲉⲧⲉ Ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲕ, Ⲙⲙⲟⲛ ⲉⲥ ϩⲏⲧ[ⲉ] ⲁⲓⲃⲱϣ ⲁϩⲏⲩ ⲁϩⲁⲛ, ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ$ ϩⲱⲱⲕ ϫⲉ ⲁⲧⲁϩⲁⲓ$ⲧⲉ Ⲣ ⲡⲏⲗⲕⲉ 10 ⲁⲣⲓ$ ⲡⲚⲀ ⲛⲄϯ ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ$ ⲧⲏⲣ[ϥ] Ⲙⲙⲟⲛ ⲡⲛ\ⲟ/ⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲥⲟ[ⲟⲩⲛ] vacat 1 μέν 2 read ⲉⲗⲁⲭⲓ$ⲥⲧⲟⲥ (ἐλάχιστος) 3 read ϩⲟⲥⲓⲱⲧⲁⲧⲟⲥ (ὁσιώτατος)? 5 in ⲟⲩⲁ, ⲁ has been added afterwards 5-6 τριμήσιον 7 the first ⲉ is in the left margin “† First of all, (2) I, Ignatius, the humble and (3) inferior to Your Holiness, (4) am writing to you (5) that you have mercy and give one tremissis (?) (6) to me from the two tremissis (?) (7) which you have. For behold! (8) I have been stripped and look at me (9) yourself, that my garment became ragged. (10) Have mercy and give one to me, entirely. (11) For God knows...” 1-3 3 4 5 ϩⲁⲑⲉ, ⲙⲉⲛ Ⲙⲡⲁϣⲁϫ[ⲉ] | Ⲛⲛⲉⲗⲁⲭⲣⲓ$ⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ [ⲉϥ]|ⲕⲁϫⲃ, Ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ,ϩⲓ$ⲥⲉⲓ$ⲱⲧ\ⲁ/ [ⲧⲟⲥ] The first part of the formula is common, especially for the Theban letters of the 7th/8th centuries. The mistake ⲉⲗⲁⲭⲣⲓ$ⲥⲧⲟⲥ is all the more surprising, as if the scribe had the word “Christ” in mind. By contrast, the second part sounds unusual, especially the construction of ⲕⲁϫⲃ. Ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ,ϩⲓ$ⲥⲉⲓ$ⲱⲧ\ⲁ/[ⲧⲟⲥ] If the hypothesis of ϩⲟⲥⲓⲱⲧⲁⲧⲟⲥ (ὁσιώτατος) is correct, this is again a strange mistake, because this title is well-known and frequent in letters and its form, although often abbreviated, is not subject to strong variations (FÖRSTER, WB, pp. 591-592). It usually refers to a bishop (cf. P.Bal. 238, note 1, P.Ryl.Copt. 289, note 3), sometimes to an abbot (P.Sarga 109, note 2). ⲉⲅⲛⲁⲇⲓ$ⲟⲥ is a variant of the name ⲓⲅⲛⲁⲧⲓ$ⲟⲥ, often written ⲓⲅⲛⲁⲇⲓ$ⲟⲥ (cf. G. HEUSER, Die Personennamen der Kopten [Leipzig, 1929], p. 100; the form with initial ⲉ- is not registered in NBCopt., but it fits one of the existing variants of this Latin name [Ignatius/Egnatius], cf. HEUSER, Die Personennamen, p. 102). The name is well known in these two forms and occurs many times in Coptic documentary texts, especially in Thebes; ⲁⲅⲛⲁⲧⲓ$ⲟⲥ or ⲁⲅⲛⲁⲇⲓ$ⲟⲥ, also registered in the NBCopt., must be two other forms of this name. ⲁⲣⲓ ⲡⲛⲁ The formula is extremely common in the 7th/8th centuries. This expression has been trivialized by overuse. However, there is a real appeal to “mercy” here (and in l. 10). On the presence of an unexpected superlineation on ⲡⲛⲁ, see the introduction. 200 A LETTER OR AN EXERCISE (O.NMEC INV. 107)? 5-6 8 11 ⲁⲣⲓ$ ⲡⲚⲀ ⲛⲅϯ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲧⲏⲣ[ⲙⲥ?] | ⲛⲁⲓ$ ϩⲛ ⲡⲉⲥ,ⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛⲧⲏⲣⲙ [?] Because of the lacuna, the word that ends the two lines remains dubious. The more plausible option is to suppose that we have here a form of the Greek τριμήσιον, whose variants are very numerous (see FÖRSTER,WB, p. 819-822): it could be ⲧⲏⲣ[ⲙⲥ] in line 5 and ⲧⲏⲣⲙⲉ[ⲥ] in line 6 (or even ⲧⲏⲣⲙⲉ[ⲥⲉ], which would account for the omission and later addition of a ⲉ in ⲉⲧⲉ at the beginning of line 7). However, given the mention of a garment on line 9, one should not exclude the possibility of a form of the Greek word δέρμα (ⲧⲏⲣⲙⲁ?), “skin” (of an animal used as a garment or covering), even though this word is not attested in the documentary Coptic texts and the traces of letters do not fit this word very well (or should one suppose ⲧⲏⲣⲙⲏ?). But is it conceivable that a poor man would ask a bishop for a skin coat? Finally in line 9 (if the reconstruction is right), he asks to be given it “entirely,” and this precision fits money better than garments. In any case, the general sense is not obvious. ⲁⲓⲃⲱϣ ⲁϩⲏⲩ ⲁϩⲁⲛ Since the reading of this line seems to be clear, it provides us with two traces of influence of the dialect L4: ⲃⲱϣ ⲁϩⲏⲩ and ⲁϩⲁⲛ. The combination here of ⲃⲱϣ and ⲁϩⲏⲩ is remarkable; normally in Sahidic ⲁϩⲏⲩ comes with ⲕⲱⲕ (ⲕⲱⲕ ⲁϩⲏⲩ, cf. CRUM, Dict. 101a) and is not combined with ⲃⲱϣ, which in addition is a rarely used verb (cf. CRUM,Dict. 46 b). Now L4 uses the verb ⲃⲱϣ alone frequently, while occurrences of ⲕⲱⲕ ⲁϩⲏⲩ are rare. There seems to be a kind of contamination in our text. — ⲁϩⲁⲛ, “and,” is attested only in L4. It is thus the first occurrence of this word in non-Manichaean texts (the word is attested twice under the form ⲁϩⲚ in the documentary texts from Kellis, whose dialect is closely related to the L dialects: see P.Kellis V, pp. 91, 238, 268). Why do we find a Lycopolitan word in a Theban text? Why are both ⲁϩⲁⲛ and ⲁⲩⲱ (line 2) used? Is there a functional difference between them? At this point, there is no clear answer for these questions. However it may be remembered here that at least one similar case is to be found in the Theban documentation, namely the use of the form ⲉⲧⲁⲛⲓⲧ (relative of the stative of the verb ⲁⲛⲁⲓ) in variation with ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ in the letters written by the monk Frange (see A. BOUD’HORS & C. HEURTEL, Les Ostraca coptes de la TT 29 [n. 7], vol. 1, pp. 31-32). These two examples illustrate what Wolf-Peter Funk has noted about the dialect L4 “which, being the dialect used by the Egyptian Manichaeans, has always been the primary candidate for a mainly socially determined variety, possibly extending particularities to other dialect norms such as A and / or S without being their nearest neighbor in geography” (cf. W.-P. FUNK, “Dialects Wanting Homes: a Numerical Approach to the Early Varieties of Coptic,” in: J. FISIAK (ed.), Historical Dialectology Regional and Social [Berlin, 1988], p. 181). — After ⲁϩⲁⲛ, the form ⲛⲁⲩ must be an imperative, although ⲁⲛⲁⲩ is expected. The comma after ⲁϩⲁⲛ is a good guarantee of this interpretation. Another possibility is to divide the words as ⲁϩ ⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ, where ⲁϩ could be connected with Fayyumic ⲁϩⲁ and ⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ seen as a wrong spelling of ⲁⲛⲁⲩ. The meaning is the same, but the explanation is less satisfactory. Ⲙⲙⲟⲛ ⲡⲛ\ⲟ/ⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲥⲟ[ⲟⲩⲛ] The expression “God knows that ...” is a common cliché of the Christian letters (cf. for example O.Crum 136, 3-4; O.Mon.Epiph. 236, 6-7). The text breaks here. FayoumUniversity Maher A. EISSA 201