592 DOMINIK OPATRNY ´ blind people could not read the treatment, but that was impossible also for their illiterate fellow-citizens (agrammatov — e.g. BGU I ߥ 317.15) 28. These observations indicate that it was possible for well-off persons to maintain their living standard even despite loss of sight, so that they did not have to beg. Somebody may be surprised by the fact that these “well-off” blind persons occur in documentary papyri more often than the poor ones — but we mustn’t consider it as evidence that they represented the majority. On the contrary, we should be astonished that this disproportion isn’t even greater. Business records and messages — which are the basis of our corpus — naturally deal more often with rich persons rather than the poor ones (which can be illustrated e.g. by the fact that the database DDbDP contains no hint of the word “beggar” — pro- saıthv). The records about poor people are improbable and there- ¥ fore they are more interesting. But what was the condition of those who didn’t have such re- sources ? Was a blind man able to earn his bread through manual work ? Concerning this question, one interesting document came down to us: in the name list from Heracleopolites from the first century BC (BGU XIV 2425.24) a blind grinder is mentioned (Tyflov alethv). This work was usually done by women (ale- ù ߥ ß trıv) at home or by animals in mills, but as we can see, it was also ¥ a suitable job for a blind man 29. Nevertheless he had to be capable also of doing more complex manual work, for his name is listed among the workers who maintained the irrigation channels. There- can be found (P.Adl. G17, P.Lond. III 678). However, in the DDbDP we can find no instance of the term tyflov in this context. The word is used as an epithet ¥ in tax-records, payment records, other name lists and public correspondence in contrast with other expressions mentioned above. Roman law prohibited the blind, in contrast to “the women and illiterate 28 persons ” from making a will in secret (The Enactments of Justinian 2.12.4). This inconsistency was remedied by the emperor Leo, Const. 69. As to the treatments, in Digesta seu Pandactae 18.1.11 we find discussions on “what can we say where a blind man was the purchaser, or where a mistake was made in the substance, or where he was unskilled in detecting the nature of substances”. The term alethv can be used either for the man working the mill (as in ߥ 29 P.Oxy. LXIV 3169,91; Psi.Congr. XXI 12) or for the upper millstone (onov ¶ alethv). For the image and description of an ancient hand mill cf. PESTMAN, ߥ The New Papyrological Primer, 123.