518 JOURNAL OF JURISTIC PAPYROLOGY
He indicates t h a t the proceedings concerning t h e acquisition of p r o p e r t y (the apographe of real estate) given there is quite par-ticular f r o m t h e p o i n t of view of the R o m a n law. Since t h e real estate sold here is solum provinciale n a m e l y tribularium (Gai I I , 21) and a res пес mancipi, the acquisition of p r o p e r t y should t a k e place ipsa traditione (Gai I I , 19) w h a t was still emphasized b y Diocel-t i a n in С I, I I , 3, 20 (TradiDiocel-tionibus [mancipaDiocel-tionibus] eDiocel-t usucapio-nibus dominia rerum, non nudis pactis transferuntur [293 A. D.]). I n t h e second p a r t of his s t u d y t h e a u t h o r opposes the idea of t h e editor t h a t v . 11 concerns a κατοχή on behalf of children un-der age a n d tries to explain the assertions in these lines f r o m t h e p o i n t of view of the modified R o m a n law as it was in force in E g y p t .
E . S c h ö n b a u e r , Attische Rechtseinrichtungen in sinnvoller Einheit (Πραγματεία-, της 'Ακαδημίας 'Αθηνών 18 (1) [1953]).
I n his showily w r i t t e n s t u d y t h e a u t h o r investigates (p. 38—9) the s.c. δίκη έξούλης consisting in the a s s u m p t i o n of a controlled land p r o p e r t y in Attic law which h a d b u t gradually been appeased b u t never quite ceased to exist. A controlled land p r o p e r t y appears also in the Ptolemaic period and particularly w i t h reference to cleruchic and catoecic land. W h e n these parcels changed h a n d s , it was n o t only necessary t h e usual cooperation of the registry of real properties b u t also a special permission of the catoecic autho-rities. The authorities h a d f i r s t to accept a new holder. Characte-ristic is t h a t in t h i s case the t e r m παραχώρησις for t r a n s f e r of pro-p e r t y is used. T h e holder is w i t h - d r a w n and a new holder enters his place w i t h t h e consent of authorities. We f i n d here the same idea, which is to be f o u n d in the controlled land in Attica, n a m e l y t h a t the single holder is not entitled to transfer his p r o p e r t y t o another p r i v a t e person b u t only t o w i t h d r a w f r o m the lot in order to make w a y t o another person who according the principles go-verning the landed p r o p e r t y , now as a new holder steps on his place.
J . H e r r m a n n , Zum Begriff der γ η έν άφέσει (Chronique ďEgypte X X X , No. 59 [1955] 95—106).
H a v i n g d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e most i m p o r t a n t efforts of interpre-t a interpre-t i o n of interpre-this nointerpre-tion and having referred interpre-to interpre-t h e objecinterpre-tions
aga-SURVEY OF LITERATURE 1953—1955 519
inst t h e m the a u t h o r gives his own explanation relying on t h e t e x t s on t h e s u b j e c t . Accordingly γη έν άφέσει means t h e land, the revenues of which are t o be released b y t h e royal government and t h e cultivation of which is controlled b y t h e state. The land revenues were released if a f t e r h a v i n g delivered t h e harvested corn q u a n t i t y t o the village trashingfloor, t h e relative t a x e s b y keeping of a certain q u a n t i t y of t h e delivered corn were paid off.
Μ. К a s e r , Wesen und Wirkungen der Detention in den antiken Rechten (estr. dagli Atti del III Congresso di Diritto
comparati-ve I 1953).
P a r t I V of t h i s s t u d y is dedicated to t h e Greek and the Greco-- E g y p t i a n law. T h e author comes t o t h e conclusion t h a t in the Greek sphere a terminological differentiation of between the de-tentio a n d t h e legally protected possessio was evidently missing. T h e words έχε iv and κατέχειν are used not only for every actual power b u t also for t h e p r o p e r t y in t h e Greek meaning of the word. The difference between νομή meaning possessio and κατοχή meaning detentio is f i r s t to be found under t h e influence of the R o m a n sour-ces in the B y z a n t i n e period and even t h e n it is n o t observed consis-t e n consis-t l y (cf. m y Law2 174).
G e r m a i n e R o u i l l a r d , La vie rurale dans VEmpire byzantine (Col-lège de F r a n c e , F o n d a t i o n Schlunberger pour le byzantinisme Paris 1953).
n o t seen.
R. T a u b e n s c h l a g , Rechtsverhältnisse an der Grenzmauer im Rech-te der Papyri (estr. dagli Studi in onore di U.E. Paoli [1955] 683—684) cf. Law2 242 ff.
O b l i g a t i o n s
J . M o d r z e j e w s k i , Additional Provisions in Private Legal Acts in Greco-Roman Egypt (JJP V I I — V I I I [1954] 211—229). H . J . W o l f f , Zur Geschichte der diligentia quam suis (Iura V I [1955]
152 ff.).
I n t h i s s t u d y t h e author deals w i t h Mert. 24 (200 A.D.) where in a p r i v a t e letter t h e diligentia quam suis is mentioned not as we
