586 DOMINIK OPATRNY ´ The question is: Can we associate the anonymity with social exclu- sion 12, or is it out of the question and we have to look for the reasons entirely in other fields (temporal distance, narrative structure enabling the reader to identify herself or himself with the character and so on)? Right in the beginning we can say that both manners can be found in papyri. A “blind man from Sobthis” (Swbuıthv tyflov) appears in the ¥ ¥ list of foreigners residing in Philadelphia in the first century AD (P.Corn. 22,73). Of course, his anonymity can be partially ascribed to his foreign origin as well 13, but this document is a list of foreigners, so that is not what makes him stand out from this group of more than 120 persons. Even more striking is the case of the blind grinder mentioned in BGU XIV 2425 (Heracleopolites, 1st century BC). He doesn’t only work in the house where he lives; he also works as every man of “Egyptian” status with others digging a channel 14. And yet the author of the list where he is mentioned doesn’t know his name. We find another example in Ox- yrhynchus in the third century AD. A certain Apollonios writes to his brother Artemas. At the end of his letter, after signalling the end of the message, he writes: ton tyflon o adelfov soy hnagkase me pwlhsai ù ù Ωß ¥ ߥ ¥ ˜ (“ Your brother forced me to buy the blind one”, P.Oxy. XXXVI 2783.29). We do not know, whether he bought a slave or an animal. Finally, the last example dates back to the seventh or eighth century AD (SB XX 14246.9, Hermopolite). A man called simply tyflov pays an ¥ unspecified sum of money in respect of public affairs. In a story (such as gospels), an anonymous episodic role is nothing strange. But in a list of names it is quite unexpected (just imagine if Simon the Canaanite were to be mentioned in the list of apostles just as the Canaanite Zealot). It is even more striking in money accounts. However, in other cases the scribes knew and used the names of the blind persons (e.g. in O. Elkab 147.3 Arsiesios the blind is mentioned), al- though they are sometimes unreadable now (CPR IX 50bis, O. Mich. I 140). Other examples will be discussed further on. As Albert Esser states, the blind person not only can’t see (the centripetal 12 traces are afflicted), but, which is often neglected, also the centrifugal traces are out of order. As a result the eye can’t be the mirror of the soul and the bystan- ders can’t get access to the inner psychical world of the disabled man, cf. A. ESSER, Das Antlitz der Blindheit in der Antike (Leiden 1961) 76. There are also an anonymous “man from Hermopolis, embalmer” ( Er- 13 mopolıthv anhr tarixeythv, l. 50), a “shepherd together with Panoumgeos” ¥ ßù ¥ (poimhn meta Panomgeov, l. 67), a “Shepherd together with Ptollis” (poimhn ù ù ¥ ù meta Ptwllidov, l. 68), a “Son of Sambathion” (Sambauıwnov, l. 69), and a ù ¥ ¥ “ sack weaver” (sakkoplokov, l. 92). ¥ Every Egyptian had to work five days a year to maintain the irrigation sy- 14 stem, see PALME, “The range of documentary texts”, 384.