1 3 4 J O U R N A L OF PAPYROLOGY
money annually on account of clothing and oil. T h e worker is obliged to do w o r k according to the orders of his master and not t o absent himself f r o m the w o r k under the fine of t w o drachmas f o r every day of absence. H e has f u r t h e r m o r e t o accompany the master everywhere he goes "accord-ing to the l a w . " W h a t l a w is m e a n t is not known. T h e obligation to stay w i t h the master is referred only t o day-time ( v . 1 0 : άφημιρο*, cf. v. 12) w i t h o u t any mentioning of the night, as so often in similar agreements (άιτόκοιτοϊ), cf. 241, 34 and Berger, Strafklauseln, 1911, 167. W . L . W e s t e r m a n n , Class. Philol. I X , 1914, 310. A . Zambon, Aegyptus X V , 1935, 53f.
P . M i c h . V contains also six Demotic texts. F o r their edition W i l l i a m F . E d g e r t o n is responsible. F o u r of them concern sales and, with one exception ( 3 4 2 ) , all of them are provided w i t h G r e e k subscriptions by the parties involved. T h e subscriptions generally confirm the contents of the Αιγύπτιοι σν/γραφαί referred to, sometimes not w i t h o u t some new details corresponding more to the Greek formularies, cf. f o r instance 249, 2 ; 250, 4 ; 253, 1 9 ; in the last sale contract the seller, a woman, appears with her son as a guardian, cf. Taubenschlag, Law cit. 128. I n 347, a syngraphe trophitis, the G r e e k subscription u n f o r t u n a t e l y is very badly preserved. T h e r e appears twice the term proprasis which has been known f r o m P . M i c h . I I 121 R (cf. p. 348 n. to vv. 1-2, w h e r e " a n d 6 " is to be cancelled). T h e demotic text does not contribute to the elucidation of the term which seems to mé obscure in spite of the explanation given by Arangio-Ruiz, Persom e famiglia, 1930, 51 and others.
T h e edition is technically perfect. A m o n g papyrological publications P . M i c h . V will rank w i t h the most remarkable ones, not only because of its rich contents of which only a" few samples have been rendered con-spicuous above, b u t also because of the excellent conditions in which most of the papyri published are preserved, the successful decipherment and proper adaptation of all documents by the editors. I t is self-understood that exact indices following the best models of the kind are added. T h e y occupy not less than 74 pages. Six plates w i t h t h e reproduction of one Demotic and five G r e e k papyri conclude the volume.
A D O L F B E R G E R .
A N G E L O S E G R É , An essay on the nature of real property in the classical world, P a u l Bassinor publisher, N e w Y o r k , 1943, pp. 143.
" T h e essay aims"—as the author p. 1 points o u t , — " t o state some basic points on the n a t u r e of real property in antiquity." T h e chief result of his research "lies in having made clear the political character of the right of property in the ancient classical w o r l d " ; to attain this result the author " w a s compelled to enter an exhaustive inquiry on the transfer of real
BOOK REVIEWS 1 3 5
p r o p e r t y — i n the G r e e k H e l l e n i s t i c l a w , " the s.c. καταγραφή. A c c o r d i n g l y he divides his essay i n t o t h r e e p a r t s , t w o of w h i c h ( p . 1-61) deal w i t h k a t a g r a p h e (i.e. " t h e supervision of the k a t a g r a p h e , " and " t h e f o r m and m e a n i n g of the k a t a g r a p h e " ) , while the t h i r d ( p . 7 4 - 1 2 5 ) is devoted t o the " e v o l u t i o n of p r o p e r t y on real estate in the ancient classical w o r l d . " I t m a y be added t h a t discussions on καταγραφή a r e also f o u n d in this p a r t ( p . 8 4 / 8 8 ) .
T h e a r r a n g e m e n t of the essay is very u n f o r t u n a t e . T h e a u t h o r s t a r t s f.i. w i t h the R o m a n epoch ( p . 1 - 1 0 ) , passes to the H e l l e n i s t i c resp. t o the P t o l e m a i c epoch ( p . 1 0 - 1 5 ) , in o r d e r t o r e t u r n t o the R o m a n ( p . 2 4 - 2 6 ) a n d again to the P t o l e m a i c epoch ( p . 2 6 f f . ) a n d finally discusses t h e καταγραφή in A l e x a n d r i a ( p . 3 7 f f . ) which logically should have been dis-cussed a t the very beginning as the oldest k n o w n case of а катаγραφή. T a k i n g as a s t a r t i n g point the l a t t e r , I shall t r y t o give a s h o r t s u m m a r y of Segré's essay.
I n the A l e x a n d r i a n l a w ( c f . p. 3 7 f f . ) the k a t a g r a p h e is " a d o c u m e n t conveying p r o p e r t y , " kept in a separate register by the A l e x a n d r i a n ταμίαι
( c f . also p. 6 54 1) (see however T a u b e n s c h l a g , The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, p. 2 4 2 ) . O r i g i n a l l y ( c f . p. 8 5 ) "only A l e x a n d r i a n f u l l citizens could sell real estate to o t h e r A l e x a n d r i a n f u l l citizens." I n the l a t e r period, h o w e v e r , " v e r y p r o b a b l y " G r e e k non-citizens ( p . 8 0 ) could o w n real p r o p e r t y in A l e x a n d r i a , and in the R o m a n period "even native Egyp-tians ( p . 8 0 ) — b u t they asked always to be chased f r o m the city." ( s i c ! ) T h e a u t h o r , h o w e v e r , fails t o indicate w h e t h e r or not these t w o classes of population could apply the A l e x a n d r i a n k a t a g r a p h e .
I n the χώρα in the " e a r l i e r P t o l e m a i c p e r i o d " ( p . 2 8 1. 2 f r o m the t o p ) " w h e n no a g o r a n o m i c deed seems to have been u s e d " (see h o w e v e r T e b t . 8 1 4 11. 10-18, an agoranomic deed f r o m 2 3 9 and 2 2 7 B . C . ) , " t h e k a t a g r a p h e w a s only a registration of the syngraphai h e x a m a r t y r o i " ( u n f o r t u n a t e l y I d o n ' t see any evidence of such a - r e g i s t r a t i o n ) ; a f t e r the i n t r o d u c t i o n - o f the agoranomic d o c u m e n t ( p . 26, 1. 6 f r o m the b o t t o m ) , in the beginning of the second c e n t u r y B . C . ( p . 26, 1. 7 f r o m the t o p ) " t h e agoranomos ( p . 27 1. 11 f r o m the b o t t o m ) effected a k a t a g r a p h e d r a w i n g up a double sealed syngraphe w i t h scriptura interior, and t r a n s c r i b i n g the scriptura interior in a register, the αναγραφή συμβολαίων." I n addition the k a t a g r a p h e
( p . 17) " i n the l a t e r P t o l e m a i c p e r i o d " "implied the change of the names in the αναγραφή κτημάτων" a n d the k a t a g r a p h e " w a s legal only w h e n %all these three operations had been carried o u t . But if they occurred on different dates the k a t a g r a p h e did not always become effective from the date of the last operation*" (if the k a t a g r a p h e could be effective w i t h the second
136
J O U R N A L OF PAPYROLOGYoperation, how could the change of the names in the αναγραφή κτημάτων
be a requisite of a valid katagraphe?). T h e same holds for the Roman epoch
"in the time of the Bibliotheke" (p. 17). (As far as the registration in the
αναγραφή κτημάτων, evidently identified by A. Segré,' p. 11 (1. 4 from the
bottom) and p. 14 with δίάστρωμα^ is concerned, his view is completely
wrong. " G a n z verfehlt" Mitteis Grundzüge, p. 177-8). Finally in the
Byzantine era the katagraphe (p. 51) "was the drawing up of a deed
of sale of estates and slaves and the delivery of the document to the alienee"
(traditio cartae? utterly wrong, cf. Schwarz Oeff. и. priv. Urk. im röm.
Лед. p. 285ff.).
In connection with Egypt A. Segré discusses the Hellenistic katagraphe
outside Egypt (p. 32ff., 51 ff.), esp. in the Eastern provinces of the Roman
Empire. T h e author quotes: P S I . 729, from Capadocia ( ? ) (see below) ;
D u r a 23 (180 A . D . ) ; 101 (227 A . D . ) ; Lond. I 229 = Meyer, Jur. Pap.
No. 37 (166 A . D . ) , Seleucia; S.B. 6304 (second cent. A . D . ) , Ravenna
(does Ravenna also belong to the Eastern provinces of the Roman
Empire?) ; B G U . 887 = M . Chr. 272 (151 A . D . ) , Side in Pamphylia;
B G U . 316 = M . Chr. 271 (359 A . D . ) , Askalon; B G U . 913 (216 A . D . ) ,
M y r a in Lycia (cf. Mitteis Chřest, p. 303, Grundz. 193 and Taubenschlag
Rez. d. röm. Privatrechts 396
1 8 B). A. Segré further discusses the sales
and the transfer of property in the Western provinces of the Roman
Empire p. 55ff., quoting the Vandalic traditio of Tebessa in Algeria (cf.
Wolff Revue d'hist. d. droit X I V (1936) p. 398ff.) and mancipationes
Transsilvanae: Bruns Fontes
7Νο.131 (139 A . D . ) ; No. 132 (160 A . D . ) ;
No. 133 (159 A . D . ) (cf. Ε. Weiss Sav. Z. XXXVII, 137ff.). A separate
chapter (p. 45-49) dealing with "the security and the sale" gives some,
mostly unintelligible,'remarks on arra (s. below).
In the second part of his essay A. Segré takes up the following topics:
"real estate in the realm of Syria" (p. 82ff.), "royal land and private land"
(p. 88ff.), "property in Ptolemaic Egypt" (p. 109ff.), "property and
hereditary leases in Hellenistic Egypt" (p. 119-121), "some characteristics
of ownership of real estate in the ancient world" (p. 94-97),
"transforma-tion of the ager publicus into ager privatus after the fiscal reform of
Diocletian" (p. 97-100), "the protection of property under Greek,
Egyp-tian and Greco-EgypEgyp-tian law" (p. 89-94). All this he treats on the basis
of the literature of the subject. T h e discussion of his chief problem "on the
political character of the right of property in the ancient classical world,"
that is (p. 74) of "the well known principle of Greek public law" that
"real estate and citizenship were very closely connected," comprises a
few pages (p. 74-82). These few pages are, as far as ancient Greece is
concerned, based mostly on the literature of the subject (cf. Weiss Griech.
BOOK R E V I E W S
137
Privatrecht, p. 185ff.), but as far as Alexandria is concerned (p. 74ff.)
"a problem disregarded by scholars who have studied the Greco-Egyptian
katagraphe"—on no evidence at all.
1T h e only evidence which could
support this idea, namely, that the πολιτικοί νόμο·; regulating the katagraphe
( P . Hal. 1. 246) applies only to the 'A.\i£avbptls (cf. Taubenschlag I.e.
p. 7„
7), is by no means utilized by A. Segré.
Finally we have to give credit to the author for such unfounded hypotheses
as that on p. 51 (1. 10 from the top) that "the delivery of the document
may be considered as a substitute for the Greek registration as well as
substitute for the Latin traditio corporalis"; on p. 8 (1. 3 from the bottom)
that the "archives had the power to transform the promise of katagraphe
of the synchoresis into an actual katagraphe," or on p. 38 (cf. also p. 66
4 2)
that "the registration of a private document was equivalent to the
acknowl-edgment of a legal deed before a tribunal or before a notary," and finally
on p. 59: " I do not believe that a chirograph or synchoresis, could contain
more than a promise of katagraphe even if it contained all the clauses which
usually appear in the deed of katagraphe." (sic!).
As this summary shows, the author's study failed to produce new results.
At the same time, however, the study is open to many objections.
First of all, as far as the presentation of the subject is concerned,
there are dozens of sentences which are quite unintelligible. A short collection
will justify this assertion.
p. 7 " T h e abstract character of the deed of conveyance of real
estate and slaves depended essentially on the operations leading
to the katagraphe which protected the purchaser from suits
against his title." (sic!)
p. 7 "Generally the parties used such an imperfect deed when they
had no possibility of drawing up a public deed of katagraphe.
. . . This happened . . . when the alleged deed was not able to
convey the property. . . '."
p. 10 " T h e katagraphe and its supervision of the conveyance of real
estate in the Hellenistic laws."
p. 11 " W i t h the anagraphe of the real property . . . and with the
anagraphai of the deeds, the notary could draw up the
kata-1
On p. 85 I find the following sentences: "But the conveyance of real
estate belonging to the territory of the town and effected in Alexandria
by the rauiai, shows that the properties were filed in the registers κατά δήμους
and that at least only Alexandrian full citizens originally could sell
real estate to other Alexandrian full citizens." And note 39: " I n Athens
there was probably a land survey by the demarcfros see Busolt, Griech.
Staat salt. 1926 I I p. 968" (sic!)
1 3 8 J O U R N A L OF PAPYROLOGY
g r a p h e w i t h o u t using the punitive system of the p r o g r a p h e , w h i c h , however, w o u l d not be entirely useless in the case of defective a n a g r a p h e . "
p. 12 " I n P t o l e m a i c E g y p t these t w o sorts of a n a g r a p h a i do not appear so definitely as they d o in the R o m a n period, a l t h o u g h the k a t a g r a p h e of the Ptolemaic period w a s based on the same principles as the k a t a g r a p h e of the R o m a n age."
p. 29 " W h i l e in E g y p t the k a t a g r a p h e of the sale as well as the a n a g r a p h e of the mortgages w e r e effected by the same n o t a r y , the agoranomos and the collection of the è-γκνκλιον was m a d e by the t a x collectors in A l e x a n d r i a . "
p. 38 " A s a m a t t e r of fact, if a c r e d i t o r sued a debtor for a credit in the f o r m of1 a syngraphe the m a g i s t r a t e could compel the debtor t o w r i t e an a c k n o w l e d g m e n t of debt in the f o r m of an νποφραφή u n d e r the syngraphe b r o u g h t b e f o r e the m a g i s t r a t e . T h e syn-g r a p h e could also be a private d o c u m e n t (see p. 2 8 ) but the υπογραφή w r i t t e n before a m a g i s t r a t e or n o t a r y , if I am not mistaken, transformed the syngraphe and hypographe into a sort of public d e e d . " ( s i c ! )
p. 4 0 " I t is probable t h a t the άμφονριον was originally a symbolic deed, p e r f o r m e d w i t h the h a n d i n g over of the άμφονριον before the neighbors of the o w n e r of the estate, when the άμφονριον w a s considered a symbol of the estate. B u t the άμφονριον aimed also at d e t e r m i n i n g the boundaries and a t preserving the d e e d . "
( s i c ! )
p. 4 6 " I n the cases w h e r e the arrha w a s a small a m o u n t of the price, the purchaser w h o anticipated the receipt of a small sum of money, probably p r e f e r r e d the f u l f i l l m e n t of the t r a n s a c t i o n to the penalty of the arrha by t h e seller."
p. 4 6 " T h e p u r c h a s e r w h o gave the security is entitled to retain the arra if the seller d e f a u l t s . . . . " ,
p. 51 " T h e translation of k a t a g r a p h e w i t h mancipatio is, however, not a l t o g e t h e r incorrect because a certain degree of abstract-ness m i g h t be a t t r i b u t e d to the k a t a g r a p h e , at least the relative abstractness of the G r e e k w r i t t e n d e e d " ( s i c ! )
p. 53 " P e r e g r i n i and R o m a n soldiers in the R o m a n imperial a r m y in the castra soldiers mancipi with the traditiones ( s i c ! ) w h i c h m a y of course have applied as well to R o m a n s as to peregrini as deeds of ius gentium."
BOOK REVIEWS 139
p. 54 " I n the Eastern provinces until now only the documents redacted in the castra were sales with traditiones, (sc. servo-rum)—the others were mere sales. T h e traditiones in the docu-ments redacted in the castra probably were not accidental. I n the early Byzantine period when between the reigns of Diocle-tian and Constantine in Egypt the archives disappeared and w i t h them all the system of the katagraphe, the katagraphe was replaced by the redaction of the document and its delivei t o the purchaser. T h e n the delivei of the document was con-sidered as a katagraphe for the Greeks or a traditio for the Romans, in both cases an act able to transfer the property. . : . " T h e author mixed up the traditio servi with the traditio cartae! p. 56 " B u t in the W e s t e r n provinces we are confronted also with sale
with mancipationes, some with mancipatio and some w i t h o u t the traditio. I think that in most cases these mancipationes have to be interpreted only as sales w i t h or w i t h o u t traditio." p. 6 75 2 " A s f o r private R o m a n estates, the adiudicatio attributed the
title of the estate directly to an actio divisoria."
6. 67 " T h e delineation of the boundaries could become later a form f o r a sort of indirect deed."
p. 80 " V e r y probably, Greek non citizens could own real property in Alexandria. U n d e r Roman rule even native Egyptians could own real property in Alexandria, but they asked always to be chased f r o m the C i t y . " (sic!)
p. 83 " T h e soil of the realm of Syria could be divided into t w o great categories, soil of Greek towns, liable to become the property of G r e e k individuals, and royal land which individu-als could possess only under the protection of the laws." (sic!) p. 8 4 " T h e first G r e e k apographai we know of are perhaps the declarations of the registers of landed property of M y t i l e n e in I . G . X I I I , 2 N o . 74 and 75 of the third century B . C . " p. 88 " R e a l property which did not belong to him (i.e. the king)
and royal land could become spurious private ownership through an act of renunciation by the king."
p. 103 " T h e affinity between sovereignty and ownership was recog-nized even in the modern w o r l d ; both (sovereignty and owner-ship) are an affirmation of the mastery of the m a j o r i t y but in different fields, one in public, the other in private l a w . " p. 103 " U l p i a n asserts that Roman ownership may be understood as
140
JOURNAL OF PAPYROLOGY
T h i s assertion leads us directly to the conception of a property
sovereignty, because this dominium is extended to a sphere of
rights where law i.e. the state may not interfere but customs and
morals can." ( s i c ! )
" T h e title on real estate . . . is a privilege of the full citizen
shared by a limited class of inhabitants to the government of
the Greek town."
" T h e concessioned land, as a rule, always paid a rental to
the king the «ψάρια; it could also pay a taxation τί\η which,
however, could be more directly connected with the qualification
of the persons of the holdings than with the holders themselves."
T h e great number of these unintelligible sentences is matched by an
equally great number of contradictions. W e read: p. 2 "katagraphe" is "a
deed of c o n v e y a n c e — a f f e c t e d by the public notary supervising the conveyance
of real property and slaves" ; p. 3 "deeds of conveyance . . . drafted
under the supervision of the Bibliotheke" ; p. 68
( i 0"in Ptolemaic times
the seller, not the notary made the katagraphe in Petr. II 23, IV, 1 ; p. 2
"the katagraphe was a deed closely related with the archives which
registered public deeds"; p. 13 "the katagraphe drawn up before the
agoranomoi in P. Col. 480 was not necessarily connected with an
agorano-mic deed as in Lond. II 220, p. 5, 11 ( 133 B . C . ) . " — P . 7 "A private
docu-ment even if registered with an ίκμαρτνρησις or a Ζημωσίωσιτ was not a deed
of katagraphe"; p. 3 "other public documents did not convey property
directly as the ατιγχωρησπ, the χφά-γραφον registered with the δημωσίωσις and
the ίκμαρτνρησπ." P. 25 "the chirograph registered with the Sr}μωσίωσις, or
t h e ( κ μ α ρ τ ι ρ η σ κ were public deeds" (s. however : MitteisGV//Wz. 83 ; P . M e y e r
Jur. Papyri 109; Woess Unters, über das Urkundenwesen im röm.
A eg. 3 5 2 : "χαρόγραφον remains a χ « ρόγραφον").—P. 17 "in the time of
the Bibliotheke . . . the katagraphe implied the change of the names in the
αναγραφή κτημάτων (in addition "to ( b ) the drawing up of the document
and ( c ) its registration in the αναγραφή συμβολαίων"); p. 24 "In the
period of the Bibliotheke the katagraphe appears to have been the legal
deed and its registration in the anagraphe of the deeds, because the
registra-tion in the S/,αστρωματα through the apographe came later and carried the
date of the deed" ( s i c ! ) . — P. 28 "Starting from Hal. 1
recon-structed on the base of B G U VI, 1213 we conclude that the
kata-graphe of the ταμία ι was the registration of the deed of conveyance of
the ownership of real estate and slaves in the form of an anagraphe"; p. 37
"the katagraphe appears to have been always a document conveying
property—real estates and slaves—filed in an anagraphe of documents";
"the katagraphai were not kept in a particular register, except in Alexandria
p. 104
BOOK R E V I E W S
141
where a separate register of katagraphai seems to have been kept by the
Alexandrian ταιύαι." — P. 59 "the problem of conflict of the titles between
a purchaser С who bought an estate from a vendor through a document
unable to effect the katagraphe and a second purchaser C j who bought
the same property with a deed of katagraphe was a very exceptional one,
because the first purchaser С might and consequently would protect himself
with a 7ταράθισκ;" whilst on p. 5 he asserts "that the parathesis aimed
merely to restrain the illegal disposition of the property by the owner" . . .
and the παράθίσις . . . "prevented the seller . . . from alienating the
property a second time." But how could a conflict arise between С and C
tif C, could not buy the same property at all?—On p. 29 he concludes
that "the anagraphe preceded the writing of the deed," while on p. 28/9
he asserts "probably the parties concerned went to the ταμίαι with a
syn-graphe hexamartyros . . . and presented it to the ταμίαι."—On p. 32 he
asserts "there was a notable d i f f e r e n c e between the Greco-Egyptian
kata-graphai and the other Hellenistic conveyances" ; the author states that "the
katagraphai of Dura and M y r a in Lydia ( ! ) B G U . 913 (206 A . D . )
appear to be like the Greco-Egyptian katagraphai," then he passes to the
novel of Chariton and finds out that "the proceeding of the katagraphe
in Chariton's novel was probably very like the proceedings of the katagraphe
in Dura," (which are, as he mentioned, like the Greco-Egyptian
kata-graphai) ; in other words, there is no difference between the
Greco-Egyptian katagraphai and the other Hellenistic conveyances—which A.
Segré qualified before as "notable."—P. 89 "the cleruchic land becomes
private land in the imperial age"; p. 107 "we may not properly call
private ownership the rights of the people entitled to the cleruchic land."
—P. 126
g"In addition to the arguments of p. 64 it would be difficult to
admit that the Greek living in Alexandria could be excluded for the whole
Ptolemaic period from an ί-γκτησis"; p. 78 "if the praxis of Alexandria
was not different from that of Syracuse , Greek non-citizens of Alexandria
could be entitled to the lyκτησις"; p. 75 "But did the Greek colonial polis
originally exclude the Greek inhabitants who were not full citizens from
the ownership of real property? Probably not"; p. 79 "In the Ptolemaic
period Greeks, or at least Greek soldiers and descendants of soldiers, very
probably owned real property in Alexandria"; p. 80 "Very probably
Greek non-citizens could own real property in Alexandria." The same idea
is twice expressed as a certainty (p. 75, 126), and four times as a
probability (p. 78, 75, 79, 80) ; p. 82 "even if they owned such property
it was under restricted conditions"; — P. 77 "these Greek κάτοικοι later
constituted the bulk of the Greek colonial towns, because by the
I42 J O U R N A L OF PAPYROLOGY
the nearby villages w e r e g r a n t e d citizenship of the n e w p o l i s " ; and some pages later, p. 77 " i n the G r e e k colonial t o w n s κάτοικοι sometimes g r a n t e d citizenship in the polis where they dwelt."—P. 9 8 " w h e n fisc and aerarium w e r e m e r g e d t h e ager publicus could have been considered as ager stipendiarius . . . then all the possessores of the ager publicus could have been called tributarii . . . w i t h the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the different cate-gories of the ager publicus into ager tributarius."—P. 113 " w h e n the rental w a s t r a n s f o r m e d in land tax the h e r e d i t a r y t e n a n t s of the estates could boast of h a v i n g been t u r n e d into genuine owners according to the G r e c o - E g y p t i a n l a w " ; p. 110 "cleruchic land paid taxes τίλη and not r e n t s " ; p. 107 " w e m a y not properly call private ownership the rights of the people . . . - e n t i t l e d . . . to the cleruchic l a n d . " — P . 4 "Bibliotheke concerned itself only w i t h public d o c u m e n t s of the nome w h i c h conveyed real p r o p e r t y and s l a v e s " ; p. 4 (1. 7 f r o m the t o p ) is evident t h a t t h e bibliotheke dealt also w i t h public d o c u m e n t s w h i c h did not actually convey property, registered w i t h a παράθΐσπ. — P . 31 "the anagraphe of the Egyptian syngraphe enabled this document to perform the katagraphe"
( s i c ! ) ; p. 3 2 " I t h i n k the Egyptian syngraphai w e r e able to effect a k a t a g r a p h e because the agoranomoi in their archives kept the G r e e k a n a g r a p h a i of the E g y p t i a n d e e d s . " — P . 31 " t h e d o c u m e n t of the grapheion m a r k s the passage between the P t o l e m a i c d o c u m e n t and t h e d o c u m e n t of the R o m a n age . . . it m a y be defined as a registered agoranomic d o c u m e n t " ; p. 13 " t h e k a t a g r a p h e d r a w n up before the agoranomoi in P . C o l . 4 8 0 w a s not necessarily connected w i t h an a g o r a n o m i c deed as in L o n d . I I 2 2 0 p. 5 4.11 ( 1 3 3 B . C . ) . " T h e question m a y be a s k e d : w a s the agoranomic deed in L o n d . I I 2 2 0 p. 5 1.11 g not registered a g o r a n o m i c deed and d ' d it, in spite of t h a t , convey p r o p e r t y ? A c c o r d i n g t o the a u t h o r ' s assertions on p. 17 the k a t a g r a p h e w o u l d be in this case i l l e g a l . — P . 59 " p r i v a t e deeds . . . could not affect the k a t a g r a p h e directly . . . b u t the a u t h o r himself states on p. 2 02 5 t h a t P . Giss = M . C h r . 2 0 6 seems to c o n t r a d i c t this assumption ( c f . his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p. 2 02 e) .
N o t less b o r i n g are the repetitions. I quoted on p. 141 an example, w h e r e the r i g h t of the G r e e k population t o possess p r o p e r t y in A l e x a n d r i a w a s repeated 6 t i m e s ; on the p. 1 / 2 G r e e k conveyance of property is called k a t a g r a p h e ; the same p. 2 v. 1 0 / 1 1 f r o m the t o p ; on the p. 2 " d e e d closely related w i t h the archives w h i c h registered public d e e d s " ; the same p. 1 8 ; p. 4 (1. 4 f r o m the b o t t o m ) " i n the case w h e r e he had his p r o p e r t y iv παραθίσΐΐ t h e seller did not w r i t e a k a t a g r a p h e b u t a promise of a k a t a g r a p h e , " cf. the same 1 82 1; p. 3 " o t h e r public d o c u m e n t s did not convey p r o p e r t y directly as the συγχωρήσω," cf. the same p. 7 ; p. 11 " a n a g r a p h e of t h e real p r o p e r t y , probably c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o the διαστρωματα,"
BOOK REVIEWS 4 3
the same p. 1 4 ; p. 26 " I n the second half of the sec. cent. B . C . the syngraphe h e x a m a r t y r o s registered w i t h the a n a g r a p h e and the scriptum interior shortened w a s d r a w n up by the same n o t a r y of the grapheion w h o w r o t e the αναγραφή" cf. the saine on the same page 2 6 ; p. 2 8 " I n a l a t e r period w e m a y state t h a t the scribes w r i t i n g the συγγραφή ίξαμάρτυρο·: be-fore the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the a n a g r a p h e kept p r i v a t e registers of the deeds in the f o r m of schedae filed in chronological order, cf. the same on the p. 6 2l g; p. 60 " t h e B y z a n t i n e k a t a g r a p h e w a s a s c r i p t u r a plus a delivery of the deed t o the alienee," the same on the p. 4 9 f f . ; p. 2 9 "ταμίαι copied the s c r i p t u r a interior in the a n a g r a f e of the deeds," cf. the same on the p. 6 32 1 ; on πΐριορισμός see p. 4 0 / 4 2 , the same p. 6 64 g; p. 110 "cleruchic l a n d paid taxes, t h e same p. 1 3 7g e; p. 74 " W o m e n could not be considered as belonging to a demos," cf. the same on p. 1253 1.
F i n a l l y I am obliged to call a t t e n t i o n t o same sentences w h i c h lack exactness a n d precision. P . 2 : βιβλιοθήκη iyκτήσεων = the E g y p t i a n "bu-reau c o n t r o l l i n g the activities of n o t a r i e s , " p. 3 " t h e register of p r o p e r t y of the n o m e " ; p". 10 " B i b l i o t h e k e . . . last step of the evolution of the archives supervising t h e t i t l e s " ; p. 75 " U n ' d e r the R o m a n rule all G r e e k t o w n s and A l e x a n d r i a , like all o t h e r G r e e k t o w n s reveal n u m e r o u s c a s e s " ; p. 3 " w h o wishes to sell his real p r o p e r t y . . . m u s t ask the permission . . . w i t h o u t this authorization"; p. 5 " t h e legal status of the parties as r e g a r d s the t i t l e s " ( s i c ! ) ; p. 7 " b y a r e g u l a r conveyance of property, notaries . . . protected the o w n e r " ; p. 10 "archives registering the a n a g r a p h a i of the e s t a t e s " ; p. 4 4 " a d o c u m e n t of k a t a g r a p h e contains a sale a n d k a t a g r a p h e " ; p. 53 " i n the R o m a n castra . . . a f o r m of R o m a n territorial law w a s applied which d e r o g a t e d f r o m the Hellenistic ter-restrial ( ? ) l a w " ; p. 9 6 " t h e A l e x a n d r i a n democracy solemnly assumed the protection of the possessions ( a n d of p r o p e r t i e s ) of the citizens u n d e r the oath of the A r c h o n (see p. 90.) which corresponded t o an uti possidetis," a sentence which suggests t h a t according to t h e a u t h o r the interdictum uti possidetis protected not only possession b u t also p r o p e r t y .
M o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n all these f o r m a l deficiencies are the a u t h o r ' s de-ficiencies t o the point, the appreciation of which m a y be l e f t t o the b e t t e r j u d g m e n t of the papyrologists and s t u d e n t s of R o m a n l a w .
A s f a r as G r e e k resp. Hellenistic l a w is concerned he defines on the p. 34 διαστολικόν = "i.e. the tax which permits p r o c e d u r e to the foreclosure of the m o r t g a g e " ; the same on the p. 64.i4 " t h e holder of the m o r t g a g e m a y proceed t o foreclose at the expiration of the t e r m of the m o r t g a g e w i t h o u t paying the ananeosis a n d the διαστολικον b u t he m u s t pay the έγκνκλιον" T h i s definition reveals t h a t Segré is not f a m i l i a r w i t h this t e r m , so f r e q u e n t l y used in the papyri w h e r e it m e a n s s u m m o n s ( c f . T a u b e n
-4 -4 J O U R N A L OF PAPYROLOGY
schlag I.e. 382, 4 0 8 ) . — T h e same applies to άνανίωσκ, which in his
opinion is also a tax (cf. however Taubenschlag I.e. 2 1 3i y ) . He is alsowrong
in writing on the p. 33 "this tax was paid by the mortgage (sic!) or before proceeding to the execution on the estate; i.e., before proceeding to the προσβολή," not knowing that the execution on hypothecs is called ίπικαταβοΧή (cf. Taubenschlag I.e. 15,213/14) whilst προσβολή has a quite different meaning (ef. Taubenschlag I.e. 208, 403, 4 0 9 ) . O n p. 12 he asserts "that the transfer of property of slaves was "checked . . - with the o'iKoyivtia, when he was born in serfdom," whilst οίκογάαα (cf. T a u
-benschlag i.e. 701 2 9, cf. 6 0r 7) refers to home bred slaves, in contrast to
purchased slaves. Very confusing and misleading are his ideas on Greco-Egyptian law ( c f . Taubenschlag I.e. 7 ) ; p. 87 "the Greek and the Egyptian laws were merged in the Greco-Egyptian law of the royal edicts"
(sic!) ; on the same page "Greek and Egyptian law were merged to a very extent in a sort of royal law in the second half of the second century" ; p. 89 "Greek and Egyptian law, which we may consider as two different iura civilia had been absorbed by the royal law of the diagrammata and the prostagmata" ; p. 90 "Royal edicts made Greek and Egyptian legisla-tion little by little a territorial law by a procedure which recalls in some
way the activity of the Roman praetor" (sic!) ; p. 138(|„ "Greco-Egyptian
law which had absorbed much of the civil Greek law in the law of the roval edicts" ( s i c ! ) — O n p. 8 he asserts that Schwarz ( A c t e s Oxford 4 2 8 ) assumed "incorrectly" that the synchoresis became a deed able to convey real property as an agoranomic document" (in spite of a scries of docu-ments quoted by the latter, I.e.) with reference to p. Harris 75 ( I I I cent. A . D . ) where we read (1. 9 ) κατά συγχιιψησιν γίγινημίντ) ν διΐι тог καταλογή ίου κατεγράφη. T h e author writes on p. 8 "the katalogeion of Alexandria could draw up a synchoresis with a promise of katagraphe by the seller and not a katagraphe because the owner did not have his property iv απογραφή" ( s i c ! ) . This assertion proves that the author lias no knowledge of the fact that katagraphe could also take place when the auctor was not άπογίγαμμένος and that we have a similar case in Oxy. X 1268 (cf. Lewald К rit. Vierteljahr. X I I 4 8 0 ; P. Meyer Jur. Pap. 2 1 7 . ) — H i s further assertion (p. 13) that in "the earlier Ptolemaic period the agoranomos did not appear to draw up agoranomic documents" (cf. Schwarz, Actes Oxford 41 l; l) shows his ignorance with Tebt. 814 v. lOff. ( 2 3 9 / 2 6 0 B . C . )
[ώη/ç μίρονν (J j ντίγραφον. \ [ ίτονς | ] 7/ | Гор\π\ι. |at'or β Φαωφι α [«'l' Κροκο-διλωτ 7τ]όλίι τοίί Ά [ ρσινοίτον νομ ] oř. ύγορα [ ΐΌ/ioiVro« Νικ | ολαου. <ν[ρι'ατο] κτλ. His opinion on p. 62, that the syngraphai in Tebt. 815 (228-221 B.C.) were drawn up in a grapheion, indicates again his ignorance with the fact that the grapheia came into being after 146/5 B.C., and that the
BOOK R E V I E W S 4 5 grapheia in the Ptolemaic epoch, registered only, but did not drawn up documents (cf. Partsch-Wilcken S.B. Heid. Ak. d. Wiss. V I I ( 1 9 2 7 ) p. 50ff. ) . O n p. 47 he writes, " I think the opinion expressed by some scholars that the purchaser under Greek law could claim the completion of the transaction with a δίκη β(βα.ιωσ€ω<; (cf. Simonetos Festschrift Koschaker I I I 184ff.) is not correct." This opinion is not expressed by "some scholars" but by Harpokration : βιβαιώσιως. δίκης όνομΑ Ιστιν . . . . mor« St Kat άρραβωνος μόνου SoÖevTos tira άμ,φισβητήσαντος του πίπρακοτος, «λάγχακ την της βιβάίώσίως δίκην ό τον αρραβώνα δους τω λ,αβόντι who in-forms us that in some local laws, íviórt, the δίκη β<βαιωσ«υς was applied in
this case.—P. 135Γ)5. His assertion that "very probably even the eternal
tenancy of concessioned land was protected by the Greco-Egyptian law in the same way as if it had been genuine ownership" is wrong (cf.
Tauben-schlag I.e. 189, 1 8 7 J4) . — T h e same holds for p. 55 "therefore a traditio
has no reason to be mentioned in a sale Greek or Latin, which had later to be transformed into a katagraphe" (cf. Taubenschlag I.e. 2 5 1 ) and his assertion p. 15 that a -γραφή καταλοχισμων was ( a ) a "register of abstracts ( ! ) of deeds" and at the same time ( c ) the register of those persons who were entitled to possess cleruchic land" (cf. Taubenschlag I.e. 1 7 1 ) . As far as Roman law is concerned, students of Roman law will be per-plexed when reading p. 71 : "Mitteis Reichsrecht und Volksrecht p. 133ff. says that the rules of the ius honorarium may be applied to the peregrini when they are not too technically connected with the Roman ius civile. T h i s is probably not quite correct because the stipulatio was used by the peregrini also before the C . A . O f course, in this case the legal effects of the stipulatio are questionable" ( s i c ! ) A . Segré considers the stipulatio applied by the peregrini as an institution iuris civilis, the legal effects of which were in this case "questionable." Here A . Segré, the romanist may be reminded of a passage in Gaius III 92 "Verbis obligatio fit ex interrogatione et responsione veluti: dart spondes? spondeo, dabis? dabo...Sed haec quidem verborum obligatio: dari spondes? spondeo propria civium Romanorum est; ceterae vero iuris gentium sunt, itaque inter omnes homines, sive cives Romanos sive peregrines, valent; et quamvis ad Graecam vocem expressae fuerint, veluti hoc modo : Δ ώ σ α ς ; Δώσω ; 'O/xoAoytîç; 'Ομολογώ," a form, which we find innumerable times in the papyri (cf. Taubenschlag I.e. 2 9 9 ) }
1 Amazed by the above statements, I choose at random one of his
former contributions, his article in Studi Bonfante I I I ( 1 9 3 0 ) . I was not a little surprised when I read p. 431 :
"Sabina Apollonarřa, essendo ίττάτωρ, non è soggetta alla tutela agnatizia in forza délia lex Claudia, per cui se non aveva vissuto in giuste nozze col padre de'suoi figli e non aveva quindi potuto
1 4 6 J O U R N A L OF PAPYROLOGY
N o less striking is his discussion on arrha p. 4 5 " w h e n the security con-sisted of a large part of the price it acted " p r a c t i c a l l y " as arrha poeni-tentialis; w h e n it was a ring given as earnest for a sale of 10 talents ( t o use the example of T h e o p h r a s t o s ) , the ring d i d not fulfil the role of p e n a l t y . " A c c o r d i n g to the author the character of the arrha depends not on the intention of the parties to the contract, b u t on the fact whether it is " a large part of the price" or a " r i n g " ; a " l a r g e p a r t " of the price acts " p r a c t i c a l l y " as arrha poenitentialis, a ring as arrha confirmatoria. I n addition he invents a hitherto u n k n o w n institution "arrha anulus" ( s i c ! ) w h i c h he contrasts w i t h "arrha poenitentialis" ( c f . p. 4 8 ) " c o n c l u d i n g w e w o u l d distinguish in the Hellenistic l a w between an arrha poenitentialis, part of the price a n d arrha anulus ( ! ) w h i c h was b u t a necessary require-m e n t for creating the obligation of the seller to deliver and of the purchaser to pay the price." T h i s " u n k n o w n " institution, however, is also k n o w n t o R o m a n l a w , since w e read p. 4 8 / 4 9 : " F o r R o m a n l a w the arrha could only be an argumentum emptionis b u t w h i l e the arrha part of a price could l i m i t the penalty to the extent of the security, the arrha anulus ( s i c ! ) could not affect the obligation arising f r o m the emptio venditio." T h i s
richiedere dal prefetto u n tutor optivus e se questi per caso fosse stato assente, un tutor ad actum."
T h e author m a d e four elementary errors in these few sentences: ( a ) H e asserts that the w o m a n being άπα'τωρ was not subject to agnatic
guardianship according to the provisions of the lex Claudia, not k n o w i n g of course, that the lex Claudia abolished agnatic guardian-ship about 150 years before this document was d r a w n up. (ćf. G a i .
157 Sed postea lex Claudia lata est quae quod ad feminas attinet, agnatorum tutelam sustulit.).
( b ) H e m a i n t a i n s that w o m e n had to apply to the prefect for a tutor optivus. H e does not k n o w that "tutores optivi" were tutores w h o m a w o m a n could choose by herself if authorized by testament and w i l l . ( G a i . I , 150 In persona tarnen uxoris quae in manu est, recepta est etiam tutoris optio, id est, ut liceat et permittere quem velit ipsa tutorem sibi optare hoc modo : Titiae uxori meae tutoris optionem do.)
( c ) A . Segré points out that in case of absence of the tutor optivus the w o m a n could apply for a tutor ad actum;—he is not familiar w i t h the fact that in such a case only a tutor ad omnes res could be appointed at the request of the w o m a n . ( G a i . I , 173, Praeterea sena-tusconsulto permissum est in absentis tutoris locum alium petere: quo petita prior desinit; пес interest quam longe absit is tutor.) ( d ) H e contrasts a tutor optivus w i t h a tutor ad actum, failing t o realize that a tutor optivus could be also a tutor ad actum ( G a i . I 150 quo casu licet uxori tutorem optare vel in omnes res vel in unam forte aut duas.)
BOOK REVIEWS 4 7
passage means that the arrha in m o n e y — i f I understand the a u t h o r — i s simultaneously arrha confirmatoria and arrha poenalis, the "arra anulus"
( s i c ! ) only arra confirmatoria . . . — O n p. 3 6 / 7 (cf. 6 53 g) he considers as a sort of novation " t h e replacement of a private document by a public o n e , " (see however Taubenschlag Sav. Z . 51, 8 4 f f . ) . — O n p. 141 n. I l l w e read : " T o dispose of the familia he had to use a w i l l adrogatio according to X I I tables v. 3 Uti legassit super pecunia tutelave suae rei ita jus esto. Si agnatus пес escit gentiles familiam habento." O n p. 9 4 " B o n f a n t e . . . believed that the R o m a n dominium ex iure Quiritium was f u n d a m e n t a l l y different . . . f r o m ancient Greek ownership. I d o not agree w i t h h i m on this latter assumption and I t h i n k that R o m a n ownership ex iure Quiritium had nearly all the features of the ownership of real estate of a G r e e k free t o w n , " cf. 104 "because G r e e k and R o m a n property have similar political b a c k g r o u n d , " an assertion which shows a complete misunderstanding of the t w o f u n d a m e n t a l conceptions of property ( c f . M i t t e i s Reichsrecht и. Volksrecht 7 0 ) , the R o m a n esse ex jure Quiritium and the G r e e k διαδικασία.
I n this connection some remarks on the author's familiarity w i t h the sources m a y be o u t l i n e d . — O n p. H a r r . 75 1. 9 κατά σνγχόφησιν . . . κατΐγράφην is not Άσυγχώρησις of καταγραφή b u t a σνγχωρησις πιρι καταγραφής, a promise of καταγραφή ( s i c ! ) ; on p. 9 A . Segré refers Freib 8 to a σνγχωρησκ πίρΐ καταγραφής w i t h reference to 1. 25, where however the predecessor's συγχωρήσω, concerning καταγραφή in favor of J u l i u s G e m e l l u s is mentioned, whilst the author omits 1. 30 where the present σνγχωρ-ησιτ is called an act, by w h i c h καταγραφή was c o n s u m m a t e d . — O n p. 1922 he calls L o n d . I l l 1157 p. 1 1 0 = M . C h r . № 109 and Giss. 8 = M . C h r . № 206 " d o c u m e n t s promising a katagraphe which could obtain the parathesis on the d i a s t r o m a t a , " whereas the former is an application for notification in the βφλιοΐήκη ΐγκτήσίων of the applicant's right to prevent an intended sale, the k t t e r an application for απογραφή based on a χιιρόγραφον.—On p.
1922 w e r e a d : " I n O x y . 1199 the purchaser of a house in O x y r h y n c h o s bought w i t h an ιδιόγραφος πράσις ίμαρτνρήθίΐ ( s i c ! ) δια τοΰ μνημονιίου applies for a parathesis of the deed because the vendor had not the house iv απογραφή. O x y . 1268 ( I I I A . D . ) is probably a case analogous to P . O x y . 1 1 9 9 " ; as a matter of fact, the latter is an application for απογραφή, although the vendors were μη άπογιγραμμίνοι.—On p. 2 02 2 F u a d 39 ( 2 4 4 / 4 9 ) " m e a n t only the alienator agreed that the purchaser m i g h t undertake the steps leading to the k a t a g r a p h e " ; actually the purchaser is in this document authorized ΐξύναί σοι απογράψασθαι tis το των ΐνκτήσιων βιβιοφνΚάκιον.—On
ρ. 202 2 O x y . 1636 and 17042 5 "are not katagraphai b u t promises of k a t a g r a p h a i " ; however, the former reads ( I . 5 ) ομολογώ παραέχω ρηκίναι (second h a n d ) ϊσχον την καταγραφών ώς πρόκίΐται, that means " t h e
con-148 J O U R N A L OF PAPYROLOGY
veyance has been made to m e , " while the latter O x y . 170425 contains a
similar indication.—P. D u r a 101 (227 A . D . ) is—according to the author p. 5 2 / 3 — " a sale without the tradition which is not expressed even in the rather insignificant form of the G r e e k " ; in fact, we find ( W e l l e s , Arch. d. dr. orient. I 2 8 2 ) there: και την χώραν αντω tèwKcv το ϊχαν.—On p. 22g e
" T e b t . 814 ( I I I cent. B . C . ) and Petr. I I 41 are anagraphai of houses probably d r a w n up for fiscal purposes"; actually, however, the former con-tains "records of sale of forfeited property," the latter " a description of town p r o p e r t y . " — O n p. 22S 7, B G U . 1219-1222 are according t o A .
Segré anagraphai of the komogramateus and of the topogrammateus ( ? ) of sales by public auctions; but B G U . 1219-1221 are reports on auctions perfected by the state, and B G U . 1222 is a list of houses and lands
auctioned by the s t a t e . — O n p. 664„ the author identifies the νπογραφή in
B G U . 1827 ( 5 2 / 5 1 B . C . ) of the χρηματισταί w i t h the υπογραφή d r a w n up by a party in E n t . 3 5 . — O n p. 6210 we read " i n P . T e b t . 814 where a
house was acquired after a foreclosure on the property, the agoranomos in-tervened. I think in this case he wrote a protocol when he drafted con-tracts. I suppose that parties went to h i m w i t h a private document" ( s i c ! ) . T h e papyrus however states unmistakably (1. lOff.) [ώη}ϊ μίμους ά]ντίγραφον.
[(tTouç] η [Гор]7г[ ι] αι'ου β Φαώφι α [iv Κροκοδίλων wjóAei Ά[ρσινοίτου νόμ\οΰ, àyopa [ νομοΰντο·; Νικ ] ολάου. ίπριατο κτλ. and the sale by προσβολή was embodied in a formal contract between the government agent and the purchaser (cf. Taubenschlag I.e. 4 0 3 ) . — O n p. 5 8 : C . 4, 21, 17 establishes, according to the author as requirement for the transfer of property through a sale . . . the delivery of the deed to the purchaser ( traditio cartae, ( ?) cf. however Schwarz I . e . ) . — O n p. 7 2 : Cicero pro Flacco X X I V , 7 0 ; X X X I I , 80 translates "the katagraphe with mancipatio" ( s i c ! ) . I n w h a t
handbook did Prof. A . Segré find this t r a n s l a t i o n ? — O n p. 3332 (cf. p.
64) A . Segré illustrates proceedings of katagraphe of D u r a with an inscription . . . from Caria which I was first to quote in Actes Oxford
4 8 0 , — O n p. 7 07 o: B G U . 887 = M . C h r . 272 of Side in Paraphilia (151
A . D . ) "probably a traditio written in G r e e k . " O n p. 53 he defines the same document "as a sale of a female slave without traditio."—On p. 707 o he defines S.B. 6304 as "traditio written in G r e e k " ; in fact, it is " a
sale with t r a d i t i o . " — O n p. 54 he defines B G U . 316 = M . C h r . 271 " a sale without t r a d i t i o " ; in fact it is a sale w i t h traditio.—Concerning P . S . I . 729 (77 A . D . ) he asserts on p. 52 that the contract was drawn up in . . . Cappadocia ( s i c ! ) ; the parties to the contract were: a R o m a n soldier of the X X I I legio, residing in Egypt throughout the first century (cf. R.E. X I I , 2 p. 1793), and a soldier of the A l a Apriana which, according to his own statement on p. 70 "was transferred to Egypt in a
BOOK REVIEWS 1 4 9
period between 77 and 83 A . D . " I suppose that the author based his assertion on the fact . . . that the horse was from Cappadocia. (cf. 1. 1 emit equom Cappadocem nigrum).—On p. 13453 A . Segré writes " a n d in
suing before the chrematistai according to the πολιτικοί νόμοι and the ψηφίσματα he had to show the άναρχη, the birth certificate = the tax on the birth certificate of a Greek, not the payment of the inheritance tax (as inaccurately Schoenbauer, Liegenschaftsrecht p. 25, and W i l c k e n , UPZ I I , 46 and 70 and C l . Préaux, L'écon. royale d. Lagides p. 2 3 7 ) , and the declaration of the inheritance." I must confess that I belong also to those w h o interpret this passage so "inaccurately" ( m y book 159ff.) Instead of polemics I w i l l quote the respective passage in my book: "According to the πολιτικοί νόμοι and ψηφίσματα the acquisition of the estate required not only proof that the claimant was the l a w f u l son (cf. T o r . V I I , 8 = U . P . Z . N o . 162) but also the declaration of the acceptance ( T o r . 1, V I I , 11) of the estate and the payment of inheritance taxes T o r . 1, V I I , 10 καϊ ταξάμινον την άπαρχην." T h e author, making his statement, has overlooked that the question concerning the origin of Hermias was already mentioned in 1. 8 and it is improbable that the same question would be repeated again in 1. 10. O n p. 84 the author asserts wrongly that Col. 480 is from the beginning of I I I cent. B . C .
Finally, some remarks on the author's method of dealing with the literature : p. 25 " w i t h K u n k e l and Schwarz the μετίριγραφη of the catoecic land is to be considered as a deed parallel to the katagraphe" ; Schwarz Actes 418 however says with reference to K u n k e l "agoranomische Homo-logien, in welchen der Veräusserer seine €ν&οκησΐ4 z u r δια τον ιππικού λογιστηρίου erfolgten μίτίπιγραφη erklärt, die κατ ay ραφή, oder doch eine Parallelbildung dazu d a r s t e l l e n . " — O n p. 46 "νόμος άρραβωνος (see Mitteis, Grundz. p. 186ff.) apparently the purchaser w h o claimed the fulfillment of the transaction was entitled to receive from the seller nothing more than the penalty of the arrha agreed to under an earlier transaction" ; Mitteis however says: " W e n n der E m p f ä n g e r nicht erfüllt, hat er die doppelte A r r h a zurückzugeben. Umgekehrt verliert der säumige Geber die gege-b e n e . " — O n p. 6 32 5: " K u n k e l Gnom. I I I p. 146 supposes that the
ana-graphe of the demotic documents was a kataana-graphe," whilst K u n k e l asserts I.e. 159 "die αναγραφή als Publizitätshandlung hier die gleiche Stelle wie die καταγραφή bei den griechischen Verträgen e i n n a h m . " — O n p. 40 " I n the Hellenistic period the άμφονριον was doubtless a document recording the boundaries of the estate and this was rightly pointed out by Schwahn, Arch. f. Pap. I I ( 1 9 3 3 ) p. 5 7 , " whilst Schwahn considers on p. 60 the άμφονριον as a " V e r t r a g über den Verkauf ( K a u f ) eines G r u n d s t ü c k e s . " — O n p. 39 "the commentators of this passage ( T h e o p h r . fragm. 97, 4 ) were
BOOK REVIEWS
149
period between 77 and 83 A . D . " I suppose t h a t the a u t h o r based his assertion on the f a c t . . . t h a t the horse w a s f r o m Cappadocia. ( c f . 1. 1 emit equom Cappadocem nigrum).—On p. 1345 3 A . Segré w r i t e s " a n d in suing before the chrematistai according t o the πολιτικοί νόμοι and the ψηφίσματα he had t o show the άναρχη, the b i r t h certificate = the tax on the b i r t h certificate of a G r e e k , not the p a y m e n t of t h e inheritance t a x ( a s inaccurately Schoenbauer, Liegenschaftsrecht p. 25, and W i l c k e n , UPZ I I , 4 6 and 70 a n d C l . P r é a u x , L'écon. royale d. Lagides p. 2 3 7 ) , and the declaration of the i n h e r i t a n c e . " I m u s t confess t h a t I belong also to those w h o i n t e r p r e t this passage so " i n a c c u r a t e l y " ( m y book 159ff.) Instead of polemics I w i l l q u o t e the respective passage in my b o o k : " A c c o r d i n g t o the πολιτικοί νόμοι and ψηφίσματα the acquisition of the estate required not only proof t h a t the c l a i m a n t w a s the l a w f u l son ( c f . T o r . V I I , 8 = U . P . Z . N o . 162) but also the declaration of the acceptance ( T o r . 1, V I I , 11) of the estate and the p a y m e n t of inheritance taxes T o r . 1, V I I , 10 καϊ ταξάμινον την άπαρχην." T h e a u t h o r , m a k i n g his s t a t e m e n t , has overlooked t h a t the question concerning the origin of H e r m i a s w a s already m e n t i o n e d in 1. 8 a n d it is improbable t h a t the same question w o u l d be repeated again in 1. 10. O n p. 8 4 the a u t h o r asserts w r o n g l y t h a t C o l . 4 8 0 is f r o m the beginning of I I I cent. B . C .Finally, some r e m a r k s on the a u t h o r ' s m e t h o d of dealing w i t h the l i t e r a t u r e : p. 25 " w i t h K u n k e l and S c h w a r z the μετίριγραφη of the catoecic land is t o be considered as a deed parallel to the k a t a g r a p h e " ; S c h w a r z Actes 4 1 8 h o w e v e r says w i t h reference to K u n k e l "agoranomische H o m o -logien, in welchen der V e r ä u s s e r e r seine €ν&οκησΐ4 z u r δια τον ιππικον λογιστηρίου e r f o l g t e n μετεπιγραφη e r k l ä r t , die κατ ay ραφή, oder doch eine P a r a l l e l b i l d u n g d a z u d a r s t e l l e n . " — O n p. 4 6 "νόμος άρραβωνος (see M i t t e i s , Grundz. p. 186ff.) a p p a r e n t l y the purchaser w h o claimed the f u l f i l l m e n t of the t r a n s a c t i o n w a s entitled to receive f r o m the seller n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n the penalty of the a r r h a agreed to u n d e r an earlier t r a n s a c t i o n " ; M i t t e i s however says: " W e n n der E m p f ä n g e r nicht e r f ü l l t , hat er die doppelte A r r h a z u r ü c k z u g e b e n . U m g e k e h r t verliert der säumige G e b e r die gege-b e n e . " — O n p. 6 32 g: " K u n k e l Gnom. III p. 146 supposes t h a t the ana-g r a p h e of the demotic d o c u m e n t s w a s a k a t a ana-g r a p h e , " whilst K u n k e l asserts I.e. 159 "die αναγραφή als P u b l i z i t ä t s h a n d l u n g hier die gleiche Stelle wie die καταγραφή bei den griechischen V e r t r ä g e n e i n n a h m . " — O n p. 4 0 " I n the Hellenistic period the άμφονριον w a s doubtless a d o c u m e n t recording the boundaries of the estate and this w a s r i g h t l y pointed out by S c h w a h n , Arch. f . Pap. I I ( 1 9 3 3 ) p. 5 7 , " whilst S c h w a h n considers on p. 60 the άμφονριον as a " V e r t r a g über den V e r k a u f ( K a u f ) eines G r u n d s t ü c k e s . " — O n p. 3 9 " t h e c o m m e n t a t o r s of this passage ( T h e o p h r . f r a g m . 97, 4 ) w e r e
150 J O U R N A L O F P A P Y R O L O G Y
induced to suppose that αναγραφή + оркоч were the καταγραφή." May the author indicate a commentator who in face of the text: τα ίκ των νόμων ποίήσωσιν οίον άναγραφην η ϋρκον η τοις γίίτοσι το γιγνόμενον made this State-ment?—On p. 12 720 "Polyb. 34, 4 in Strabo. X V I I , 1, 2 distinguishes three elements in the population of Alexandria: the Egyptian, the μίσθοφορικον (sic!) and the Alexandrians. See Schubart, Causa Halensis, Arch. f. Pap. X I I , 1936 p. 27ff." But Schubart makes no such statement.— On p. 115 "Vineyards and orchards had been considered by scholars to have been objects of genuine real property"; note 91 "Guéraud Ent. 89." But again one looks in vain for a confirmation of this quotation.
The outlined detailed list of elementary errors, striking inaccuracies and misleading interpretations, seems to make it unnecessary to pass our own opinion on the essay as a whole. This may be left to the judgment of the reader.
