124
JOURNAL OF PAPYROLOGY(1. 12) και όπότί tav βονλη(ται) ό Ιούλιος Ni'yер (the purchaser) ánoypáýtrcu
την προκ(αμίνην) ο'ικίαν και ανλ,ας δυο δια της των ΐνκτήσίίαν βιβλιοθήκης άπο
αντιγράφου τησδ( της όμολογείας δια το int τον παρόντος μη βίβονληαθαι. The
• present passage, however, stands alone in its explicit avowal of
unwilling-ness to report. - R Τ
M I C H I G A N PAPYRI, Vol. V. Papyri from Tebtunis, Part II. By
Elinor Mullet Husselman, Arthur E. R. Boak, William F. Edgerton.
(University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series, Vol. X X I X . )
Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. London: Humphrey
Milford, Oxford Universtiy Press. 1944. Pp. X X , 446, six plates.
The 131 papyri, nos. 226-356, belong to the same group of papyri
from the grapheion of Tebtunis as those published eleven years ago in
the vol. II of the Michigan papyri. All of them originate from the first
half of the first century A.D. approximately, from 7 until 56 A.D., and
complete in a large measure the picture of the activity and technical
functioning of that record office. The assertion by one of the editors,
Dr. Elinor M . Husselman, that the papyri published in the volume
under review "do not individually contain much that is new or
impor-tant," seems to me too modest. Many a papyrologist will agree with this
reviewer that the volume belongs to the richest ones among the last
publications of the kind. Most of the papyri published are in a rarely
excellent condition and some of them may be designated as exemplary
models of the respective types of contracts in spite of their grammatical
and orthographic oddities. The edition as a whole is faultless and
de-serves full appreciation. The three editors kept, in general, the right
measure in their commentary as well as in the editorial and critical notes.
They say neither too much nor too little and leave to the papyrological
expert the further exploitation of the documents published in that
direc-tion which interests him most. More references to similar documents
in older publications, however, would certainly not have done any harm.
The following pages aim only at making the reader generally acquainted
with the contents of the extensive volume and calling his attention to some
interesting problems and pieces to be exploited. Some loose remarks on
details which seem to this reviewer noticeable may be added.
Our knowledge of the operation and clerical technique in the Tebtunis
grapheion has been considerably enriched by the new publication. In
particular, new light is thrown on those documents which contain only
the subscriptions of the parties to the contract and where the body of the
contract itself is missing. These so-called independent subscriptions being
only a brief resumé of the provisions of the agreement usually are written
on the lower part of the papyrus, while the space above is being left blank.
• BOOK REVIEWS
125
Only a few of such subscriptions without the pertaining contracts have
been known so far. It is natural that the Michigan papyri afford a new
opportunity to approach the problem from another viewpoint than it has
been done before. In a highly instructive introduction Dr. Husselman
deals with the matter. Her conclusion that those subscriptions were
not the copies of the contract which had to be deposited in the archives,
but were drawn up for the use of the contracting parties is persuasive.
On information supplied by them the contract was drawn up by a clerc
of the grapheion on a payment of a fee, grammatikon (cf. infra). The
parties to the contract then subscribed the document. Only of these
sub-scriptions were prepared additional copies for each party and left at the
grapheion, together with one complete document. The parties involved
could later obtain their copies, ekdosima, i.e. the subscriptions prepared
previously, and completed with the full text of the agreement, inserted
into the space left for it. This was the procedure normally observed. But
when the transaction was a typical one, without any particular or
excep-tional clauses, the subscriptions alone were written in the presence of
the notary who noted in the margin the signalments of the parties and
some other brief remarks to be able to fill in the body of the contract
at a later time. This procedure explains the abridged contents and the
external conditions of many Michigan papyri as well as some deviations
from the normal scheme when only the preliminary draft and not the
contract itself is preserved. With the beginning of the Roman era a
new kind of documentary procedure came into existence which deprived
the privately held copies of contracts, as they had been usual in the
Ptolemaic period, of their importance. From the contract drawn up by a
state notary, demosios chrematismos, an official copy was always available.
The ekdosima retained in the office seem to be the copies withheld by the
notary until full payment of the fees was made. Pp. 3-11 of the edition
being a precious contribution to the knowledge of the bureaucratical
prac-tice observed in the record office of Tebtunis, should be studied before
entering into the lecture of the single texts published.
The first papyri of the publication, nos. 226-232 are, with one
excep-tion, petitions of different contents, directed to the strategos. The
com-plainants ask that the wrongdoers be arrested and sent to him προς την
ίσομίνην ΐπί$οδον. Taubenschlag, Law of Graeco-Roman Egypt, (1944)
374 n. 67 translates this locution with "fitting punishment," while the
editor of this group of documents (Boak) speaks of "the coming assizes"
in the translations of no. 226, 228-230. As results from the introduction
to 228 he thinks right of the next conventus, apparently led to this
con-clusion by no. 231, 29, where, in fact, the plaintiffs speak of conventus
Only a few of such subscriptions without the pertaining contracts have been known so far. It is natural that the Michigan papyri afford a new opportunity to approach the problem from another viewpoint than it has been done before. In a highly instructive introduction Dr. Husselman deals with the matter. Her conclusion that those subscriptions were not the copies of the contract which had to be deposited in the archives, but were drawn up for the use of the contracting parties is persuasive. O n information supplied by them the contract was drawn up by a clerc of the grapheion on a payment of a fee, grammatikon (cf. infra). T h e parties to the contract then subscribed the document. Only of these sub-scriptions were prepared additional copies for each party and left at the grapheion, together with one complete document. T h e parties involved could later obtain their copies, ekdosima, i.e. the subscriptions prepared previously, and completed with the full text of the agreement, inserted into the space left for it. This was the procedure normally observed. But when the transaction was a typical one, without any particular or excep-tional clauses, the subscriptions alone were written in the presence of the notary who noted in the margin the signalments of the parties and some other brief remarks to be able to fill in the body of the contract at a later time. This procedure explains the abridged contents and the external conditions of many Michigan papyri as well as some deviations from the normal scheme when only the preliminary draft and not the contract itself is preserved. W i t h the beginning of the Roman era a new kind of documentary procedure came into existence which deprived the privately held copies of contracts, as they had been usual in the Ptolemaic period, of their importance. From the contract drawn up by a state notary, demosios chrematismos, an official copy was always available. T h e ekdosima retained in the office seem to be the copies withheld by the notary until full payment of the fees was made. Pp. 3-11 of the edition being a precious contribution to the knowledge of the bureaucratical prac-tice observed in the record office of Tebtunis, should be studied before entering into the lecture of the single texts published.
T h e first papyri of the publication, nos. 226-232 are, with one excep-tion, petitions of different contents, directed to the strategos. T h e com-plainants ask that the wrongdoers be arrested and sent to him irpb% την ίσομίνψ tné$o8ov. Taubenschlag, L a w of Graeco-Roman Egypt, ( 1 9 4 4 ) 374 n. 67 translates this locution with "fitting punishment," while the editor of this group of documents ( B o a k ) speaks of "the coming assizes" in the translations of no. 226, 228-230. As results from the introduction to 228 he thinks right of the next conventus, apparently led to this con-clusion by no. 231, 29, where, in fact, the plaintiffs speak of conventus
126 J O U R N A L OF PAPYROLOGY
different w o r d i n g and «re'£o8os should not be identified with the procedure before the conventus. T h r o u g h the phrase mentioned above the applicant asks simply that the accused be arrested and sent t o the strategos for a trial. A l l petitions have, more or less, to d o with criminal affairs and procedure. N o . 2 2 6 is connected with a lease contract previously con-cluded : the lessees of a granary belonging to the temple of the god K r o n o s of Tebtunis, had carried off its doors and committed other contraven-tions against the contract. O f more criminal nature is the w r o n g d o i n g the petitioner of 228 complains off : he and his w i f e have been insulted by his debtor, w h o refused the payment of the debt. M o r e o v e r , his w i f e was brutally beaten although she was pregnant. T h e result was that she gave birth to a dead child and her life was in danger. A similar complaint contains no. 229, while in no. 2 3 0 bodily insult concur with larceny established in the plaintiff's opinion cV αΰτοφόρωι = in flagranti, since he found the stolen goods in the thief's house. ( C o r r e c t use of the locution in no. 229, 1 2 ) . It is noteworthy that the complainant made the search for the stolen beams ( n o t "investigation of the matter," as in the trans-lation p. 3 4 ) in the domicile of the thief in company of the epistates of the village. F o r similar provision in R o m a n l a w see M o m m s e n , Roem. Strafrecht 748, and for the papyri Taubenschlag, Straf recht 66. N o . 231 is—in spite of its mutilated condition—an interesting text, with a rather c o m -plicated b a c k g r o u n d . — N o . 232, a petition to an exegetes, has been k n o w n f r o m an earlier publication in 1933. ( J o u r n . of Egyptian Arch. X I X , p p . 1 3 8 - 1 4 2 ) .
W i t h different taxes and administrative l a w are concerned the nos. 2 3 3 - 2 3 6 ; no. 2 3 3 is a corrected edition of an oath of sluice guards, pub-lished first in 1925 and reedited in SB. I l l 7174.
N o s . 2 3 7 - 2 4 2 are registers (anagraphai) of the grapheion of Tebtunis, an excellent illustration of its manifold activity. T h e y are competently explained by Boak, in connection with similar registers in P. M i c h . I I . N o . 238, a long text of 247 lines, perfectly preserved, is a quadrimestrial register of 4 6 A . D . (chronologically it is a continuation of P . M i c h . I 123 R ) with 2 3 9 contracts registered and annotations to each item whether the grammatikon-fee was paid or not. T h e editor assumes n o w that the fee was paid f o r preparation and registration of the document ( p . 5 6 ) . Otherwise Boak, P . M i c h . II p. 89, where it is expressly marked as " n o t a registration f e e , " and D r . Husselman, P. M i c h . V , p. 6 and 1 0 : " f o r the writing of the document and perhaps for the papyrus on which it was w r i t t e n . " W h e n the party was freed f r o m the fee, it is noted by the w o r d χάρις,—when the payment was adjourned, the officer of the grapheion made the remark ό φ « λ « то y p. T h e terminology f o r designating
BOOK REVIEWS
127
the nature of the single documents shows some interesting items, as f o r instance, v. 2 3 : ομολογία τιμψ, where probably a w o r d is missing; v. 2 7 : όμ. τροφίμου δουλικού, cf. B G U . 297, 21 ; W . 35,- 175 homologia άπίρισπάστου, cf. γράμματα απερίσπαστου in P. O x y . V I 898, 15 and i n f r a ; V. 2 3 5 : ομ. γεοργίας πίστεως; W . 149, 182, 2 1 9 : троф'тч φερνψ. In many entries, as 107, 157, 159, 197, 203, etc., only the parties t o and the object of the transaction indicated simply as homologia are m e n t i o n e d . — W h i l e nos. 238 and 2 4 0 are of a similar structure as no. 237, no. 241 contains instead several abstracts of contracts registered at the grapheion on the date indicated at the top of the papyrus. T h e difference between a simple list of contracts, anagraphe, and the so-called ιΐρόμινα containing abstracts of contracts is perfectly illustrated by the papyri mentioned.
N o s . 2 4 3 2 4 8 are of particular importance. T h e y are efficiently c o m -mented on by P r o f . Boak whose introduction to 243 is a remarkable supplement to his previous article on The Organization of Gilds in Greco-Roman Egypt, Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. L X V I I I ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 212ÍE. T h e s e ordinances were, as correctly stressed by the editor, of a contractual nature, and bound the members of the gild by virtue of their o w n consent. T h e association of 244 is organized f o r one year only, but it could be annually renewed. T h i s is a further evidence of their foundation on the members' agreement. T h e ordinances acquired their validity after having been subscribed by a majority of the members, cf. 243, 12. T h e gilds, as reflected in the M i c h i g a n papyri, were mostly organizations f o r religious or convivial purposes and presided by a prostates, called also epimeletes or hegoumenos. T h e main sources of the gild's funds of 243 were monthly dues to be paid by the members, fines imposed upon them f o r different contraventions, as, f o r instance, misconduct under the influ-ence of wine, failure in attending a meeting of the gild, usurping another's place at a banquet of the gild, bringing an accusation against a f e l l o w member or slandering him, intriguing against another member or ruining his household. Additional contributions were paid by the members on special occasions in their private life, as marriage, birth of children, purchase of property or" cattle, etc. T h e members were moreover obliged to help another member in trouble, to supply bail f o r him in the case of his imprisonment for debts. Particular regulations are settled in the event of death of a member or one of his family. A l l this shows a spirit of fraternity and solidarity among the members. N o t e w o r t h y js the con-clusion of the ordinance, 243, 1 2 : τα δ' άλλα α iàv τώι κοινώι δ ό ^ . If the editor's interpretation (p. 9 5 ) be correct, the phrase contains the provision that all other matters shall be regulated b y the vote of the gild. It is, h o w -ever, possible that this general formulation refers to the foregoing one and
the nature of the single documents shows some interesting items, as for instance, v. 23 : ομολογία τιμής, where probably a word is missing ; v. 27 : όμ. τροφίμον δουλικού, cf. B G U . 2 9 7 , 21 ; VV. 35,- 175 homologia απερίσπαστου, cf. -γράμματα απερίσπαστου in P. Oxy. V I 898, 15 and infra; V. 235: •6μ. yeopylas πίστίως; w . 149, 182, 219: τροψίτιν <pepvi}<;. In many entries,
as 107, 157, 159, 197, 203, etc., only the parties to and the object of the transaction indicated simply as homologia are mentioned.—While nos.
238 and 240 are of a similar structure as no. 237, no. 241 contains instead several abstracts of contracts registered at the grapheion on the date indicated at the top of the papyrus. T h e difference between a simple list of contracts, anagraphe, and the so-called tipóptva containing abstracts of contracts is perfectly illustrated by the papyri mentioned.
Nos. 243-248 are of particular importance. They are efficiently com-mented on by Prof. Boak whose introduction to 243 is a remarkable supplement to his previous article on The Organization of Gilds in Greco-Roman Egypt, Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. L X V I I I ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 212ff. These ordinances were, as correctly stressed by the editor, of a contractual nature, and bound the members of the gild by virtue of their own consent. T h e association of 244 is organized for one year only, but it could be annually renewed. This is a further evidence of their foundation on the members' agreement. T h e ordinances acquired their validity after having been subscribed by a majority of the members, cf. 243, 12. T h e gilds, as reflected in the Michigan papyri, were mostly organizations for religious or convivial purposes and presided by a prostates, called also epimeletes or hegoumenos. T h e main sources of the gild's funds of 243 were monthly dues to be paid by the members, fines imposed upon them for different contraventions, as, for instance, misconduct under the influ-ence of wine, failure in attending a meeting of the gild, usurping another's place at a banquet of the gild, bringing an accusation against a fellow member or slandering him, intriguing against another member or ruining his household. Additional contributions were paid by the members on special occasions in their private life, as marriage, birth of children, purchase of property or" cattle, etc. T h e members were moreover obliged to help another member in trouble, to supply bail for him in the case of his imprisonment for debts. Particular regulations are settled in the event of death of a member or one of his family. All this shows a spirit of fraternity and solidarity among the members. Noteworthy js the con-clusion of the ordinance, 243, 12: τα δ' άλλα α iàv τωι κοίνωι δό£τ,. If the editor's interpretation (p. 9 5 ) be correct, the phrase contains the provision that all other matters shall be regulated by'the vote of the gild. It is, how-ever, possible that this general formulation refers to the foregoing one and
128
JOURNAL OF PAPYROLOGYi concerns only further decisions taken by the gild in event of the death of certain persons connected with the association.
N o . 245, an ordinance of the salt merchants, has been known from an earlier publication by the same editor in Am. Journ. of Philology L V I I I ( 1 9 3 7 ) 210ff. This ordinance has a more commercial character; it fixed salt prices and the territory where either all members or individual ones might sell salt, and besides this penalty clauses settling fines to be paid both to the common fund of the gild and the treasury. But monthly banquets are also provided. T o our knowledge of private associations as corporate bodies in Greco-Roman Egypt, a short synthesis of which was given lastly by Taubenschlag, Law cit., 47f., the Michigan papyri supply a remarkable contribution.
Nearly one third of all texts published are sale contracts (251-309) with different ohjects, as vacant lots, catoecic and sacred land, vineland, houses, slaves. M a n y of these documents present some interesting details, some deserve particular attention, as for instance 262, where a husband retains a few dowry objects according to their syntimesis, as a part of the price for catoecic land he is selling to his wife. T h e penalty clause shows a new particularity (vv. 30ff.) : restitution of the price of the allotment increased not only by a half, but also by interests. If I am correct, is this the first example of such a combination (cf. Berger, Straf klausein 128ff., Taubenschlag, Law cit. 2 4 6 ; similar provision in 276, 1 2 ) . Besides this a penalty is settled <Lç ίδιον xptos to be paid to the other party, without, however, being called epitimon which it really w a s . — N o . 2 6 4 : sale of a slave where a former sale of a house and court is being mentioned as remaining valid. It is not quite clear why this reserve has been made. It is a characteristic feature of the Michigan papyri that very often previous agreements between the same parties are referred to and their validity con-firmed although the necessity for such a confirmation within the frames of the new contract concerning a different matter, is not given. T h e respec-tive clauses are introduced by the settlement that the party involved should not suffer any diminuation of rights with regard to the previous agreement (μη ΐλαττομίνου etc.) or that the obligation originating from the previous contract remain valid (μχνόντων κυρίων etc). T h u s sale .con-tracts refer to previous sales or loans, loans to former loans and so on, cf. 262, 18; 276, 13.19.26.34; 282. 7 ; 283, 17; 305, 18.21.25; 326, 6 0 ; 331, 5 ; 333, 2 2 ; 339, 4 . 6 ; 340, 108; 341, 8. It does not seem to me that this practicq might be a particularity of the record office in Tebtunis. T h e problem should be examined through the whole material of papyri. O n e point may, however, be stressed here: in two sales, 254, 7 and 273, 9, the reservation is made that a previous lease of the land actually being sold remains valid according to its terms. T h e clause reminds of Dig. 9, 2, 25, 1 :
BOOK REVIEWS
129
qui fundum fruendurn locavit, si fundum vendat, curare debet ut apud emptorem quoque eadem pactione colono frui liceat. Without this clause apparently the lessee could be expelled by the purchaser of the land and to avoid this the seller defends the rights of the tenant against the rule that "sale breaks lease" ( " K a u f bricht M i e t e " ) . For the problem see Frese, Aus gräko-ägyptischem Rechtsleben, 1909, 2 4 ; Berger, Ztschr. f. vergl. Rechtswiss. X X I X , 1913, 393.
Another feature we met in the Michigan papyri concerning sales is the participation of persons who are next relatives of the seller, but directly have nothing to do either with the object of the sale which expressly is indicated as belonging to the seller, or with the sale itself since the price is being paid only to the seller. A l l those persons among whom we find mothers (260, 280, , 2 9 4 ) , children ( 3 0 0 : a son, two daughters and a daughter-in-law of another son previously dead), wives (254, 258, 266 cf. infra, 269, 276, where two of five brothers are selling a house and. the wives of two of them intervene, 277, 297, 306 where besides the seller's wife another couple whose relationship to the seller is unknown), express their consent, ΐϋΒόκησ« to the sale without indicating for which reason they do it. O n ιύδάκι/σκ see Kunkel, Sav. Zeitschr. X L V I I I 297f. and P. M . Meyer, Jur. Pap. no. 28, 17 who calls those persons "Mitberechtigte" (p. 78, 79) without saying, however, of what kinds their rights are. Apparently rights of inheritance are involved, a problem which is particularly interesting from the juristic viewpoint. Clearer is the situation in 293 where four persons, three brothtrs and a sister, sell a house through an Egyptian contract and the husband of the woman declares: tVuctAcúm тт? προκιi^eVjj πράσΐΐ. H e acts apparently as the kyrios of his wife although he is not mentioned as such. Ένυκλευω in the sjnse of " t o agree" is rare, cf. P. Tebt. 201.
A n important contribution to the understanding of katagraphe is given by no. 266, a text in excellent condition, where the declarant of the
homologia promises to катаурафш a vineyard through the grapheion of Tebtunis. T h e editor's mark "here the katagraphe takes the forms of a πράσκ" is jqristically not beautiful. T h e document as well as the second hand signature gives occasion to further considerations. T h e writer of the signature is, as it appears from 350 (cf. p. 164), the father-in-law of the seller. His declaration, V. 2 2 : жαρ(ξ(σθαΙ την Ovyarípav μου Άρσινόην ΐί&οκονσαν τήι πράσι όπότί tav п\т)тси κα(?ώς τρόκιται, does not mean " I agree to render my daughter A . agreeable to the sale whenever it shall be com-pleted" (p. 166). H e apparently is the kyrios of his daughter who is interested in the sale achieved by her husband. H e declares in her name that she has agreed (not that she will agree) to the sale, this is the meaning
qui fundum fruendum locavit, si fundum vendat, curare debet ut apud emptorem quoque eadern pactione colono frui liceat. W i t h o u t this clause apparently the lessee could be expelled by the p u r c h a s e r of the land a n d to avoid this the seller d e f e n d s the rights of the t e n a n t against the r u l e t h a t "sale breaks lease" ( " K a u f bricht M i e t e " ) . F o r the problem see Frese, Aus gräko-ägyptischem Rechtsleben, 1909, 2 4 ; B e r g e r , Ztschr. f . vergl. Rechtswiss. X X I X , 1913, 393.
A n o t h e r f e a t u r e w e m e t in t h e M i c h i g a n papyri concerning sales is the participation of persons w h o are next relatives of the seller, b u t directly have n o t h i n g to do either w i t h the object of the sale w h i c h expressly is indicated as belonging to the seller, or w i t h the sale itself since the price is being paid only to the seller. A l l those persons a m o n g w h o m w e find m o t h e r s ( 2 6 0 , 280, , 2 9 4 ) , children ( 3 0 0 : a son, t w o d a u g h t e r s and a d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w of a n o t h e r son previously d e a d ) , wives ( 2 5 4 , 258, 2 6 6 cf. i n f r a , 269, 276, w h e r e t w o of five b r o t h e r s are selling a house a n d . the wives of t w o of them intervene, 277, 297, 3 0 6 w h e r e besides the seller's w i f e another couple whose relationship t o the seller is u n k n o w n ) , express their consent, ΐν&όκησκ t o the sale w i t h o u t indicating for which reason they do it. O n €νδόκψης see K u n k e l , Sav. Zeitschr. X L V I I I 2 9 7 f . and P . M . M e y e r , Jur. Pap. no. 28, 17 w h o calls those persons " M i t b e r e c h t i g t e " ( p . 78, 7 9 ) w i t h o u t saying, however, of w h a t kinds their rights are. A p p a r e n t l y rights of inheritance are involved, a problem w h i c h is p a r t i c u l a r l y interesting f r o m t h e j u r i s t i c v i e w p o i n t . C l e a r e r is the situation in 2 9 3 w h e r e f o u r persons, three b r o t h t r s a n d a sister, sell a house t h r o u g h an E g y p t i a n c o n t r a c t and the husband of the w o m a n declares : ιπικιλινω rjj νροκίΐμίν^ πράσιι. H e acts a p p a r e n t l y as the kyrios of his w i f e a l t h o u g h he is not mentioned as such. 'EiructXtvto in the s^nse of " t o a g r e e " is rare, cf. P . T e b t . 201.
A n i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of k a t a g r a p h e is given by no. 266, a text in excellent condition, w h e r e the d e c l a r a n t of t h e homologia promises to καταγραφών a vineyard t h r o u g h the grapheion of T e b t u n i s . T h e e d i t o r ' s m a r k " h e r e the k a t a g r a p h e takes the f o r m s of a π ρ ά σ « " is juristically not b e a u t i f u l . T h e d o c u m e n t as w e l l as the second h a n d s i g n a t u r e gives occasion to f u r t h e r considerations. T h e w r i t e r of the s i g n a t u r e is, as it appears f r o m 3 5 0 ( c f . p. 1 6 4 ) , the f a t h e r - i n - l a w of the seller. H i s declaration, V. 2 2 : 7ταρίζίσθαί την θιτγατίραν μου 'Αρσινόη* ευδοκούσαν τψ πράσι όπότι tàv τιλήται καθώς ιτρόκιται, does not mean " I agree t o r e n d e r my d a u g h t e r A . agreeable to the sale w h e n e v e r it shall be com-p l e t e d " ( com-p . 1 6 6 ) . H e a com-p com-p a r e n t l y is the kyrios of his d a u g h t e r w h o is interested in the sale achieved by her h u s b a n d . H e declares in her n a m e t h a t she has agreed ( n o t t h a t she will a g r e e ) t o the sale, this is the m e a n i n g
1 3 0 J O U R N A L OF PAPYROLOGY
of ενδοκοΰσαν. H i s obligation for the f u t u r e is to present his d a u g h t e r w h e n the καταγραφή, the public deed of conveyance, will be made.
A good parallel to 2 6 6 is 276, in spite of the d i f f e r e n t language applied by the parties. T h e seller assumes the obligation άναφίραν την πράσιν διά μνημovtlov ίξαμαρτνρον. I doubt w h e t h e r the last expression is to be referred to the w e l l - k n o w n syngraphe hexamartyros ( t h u s D r . H u s s e l m a n ) . It is s t r i k i n g t h a t the o t h e r t h r e e parties to the c o n t r a c t , the co-sellers, bind themselves to the same, but in quite d i f f e r e n t terms δι' w tav ßov\y ΰρχίίων ίττι τής μητροπόλεως. T h e syngraphe hexamartyros was, however, a private d o c u m e n t and the sellers of 2 7 6 submitted themselves to achieve the t r a n s f e r t h r o u g h a public deed. I t is n e w t h a t thp n o n - f u l f i l m e n t of the katar/raphein-obligation is menaced by the same penalties as the other violations of the c o n t r a c t .
A curious provision is t o be found in 305, 14ff., a sale of vacant lots by f o u r brothers. T h e purchaser's b r o t h e r w h o is the o w n e r of a neighboring g r o u n d is bound to open up a g a t e to provide e n t r a n c e t h r o u g h his p r o p e r t y to be used in common by the o w n e r s of the a d j a c e n t lots. It is striking t h a t the m a n does not participate in the agreement and does not sign the d o c u m e n t . B u t even the purchaser himself on w h o m lies the responsibility f o r the f u l f i l m e n t of this obligation by his b r o t h e r does not sign the d o c u m e n t .
T h e n a t u r e of πρόστιμον in 267, 11 and 273, 7 — b o t h papyri deal w i t h parachoresis of catoecic l a n d — i s not clear. A t any rate it is a public fine, a n d not a p r i v a t e one, to be paid, maybe, f o r a delay in paying some taxes or fees. C f . Berger, Straf klausein, lOff. Likewise the n a t u r e of pleonasmata in 260, 1 7 ; 2 6 2 , 2 3 ; 2 6 7 , 10, remains obscure, cf. P. M . M e y e r , P . G i s s . I I p. 2 4 n. 3. T h e t r a n s l a t i o n " s u r t a x e s " does not say a n y t h i n g . — T h e use of anachoresis instead of parachoresis in 259, 31 is new. I t is probably a mistake of the w r i t e r of the signature, as the editor p. 2 5 9 assumes. B u t the w o r d should be kept in evidence for f u t u r e publi-c a t i o n s . — T h e same publi-charapubli-cteristipubli-c omission opubli-cpubli-curs in 259, 1 2 . 3 0 ; 267, 7 ; 273, 5 : a f t e r TÙÇ καθηκονσας the w o r d οικονομίας is missing. ΟΙκονομίαι рстсжι·/ραφής καϊ παραχυψήσιως are m e a n t , cf. 262, 10.31. T h e omission for which d i f f e r e n t w r i t e r s are responsible is p u z z l i n g . P e r h a p s the w r i t e r s copied a f o r m u l a r y , used in the office, in which the omission had been m a d e .
A m o n g the sales of slaves ( 2 6 4 , 278, 2 8 1 ) p a r t i c u l a r l y interesting is 2 7 9 w h e r e the seller excludes his responsibility not only for the f u g i t i v i t y of the slave, w h i c h is n o r m a l , but also f o r epilepsy w h i c h is against the usual practice, cf. the o t h e r t w o papyri.
C o n t r a c t s of lease are not so n u m e r o u s as the sales, but nevertheless not less i m p o r t a n t because of some interesting details. T h u s no. 310, w i t h its n e w w o r d χ(ρσοκα\αμία ( u n c u l t i v a t e d land o v e r g r o w n w i t h r e e d s ) ,
al-though badly preserved, contains a clause about a cash subvention f r o m the lessor for particular work on the soil. I n 311 a f a r m e r of public estates leases a part of them and receives, instead of a rental, a τιμή in advance. N o . 3 1 2 : a lease of a private bath and an adjoining chaff bin is apparently the first example of the kind. T h e document is a precious contribution to the institution of baths and bath-taxes under the R o m a n regime. T h e rental in wheat is to be paid in monthly instalments, the lessor having moreover the right to select ten men w h o may make use of the bath f r e e f r o m the admission fee. Introduction and commentary by Boak are remarkable. In this connection no. 234, a receipt for a bath-tax, may be mentioned.
Of particular juristic interest is a group of documents, 317-327, con-cerning divisions of property, diaireseis. Especially nos. 321 and 322a are perfect examples of a divisio parentis inter libéras (cf. Taubenschlag, Law cit. 155f., whose presentations could be now richly completed) with a lot of new details which require a monographic treatment. T h e first document contains the clause μιτα. την ίμην (sc. the f a t h e r ' s ) τίΚΐντήν, i.e. that the division had to be effectuated a f t e r his death. B u t seemingly it was made during the father's life since the eldest son to whom the largest share was assigned has to provide the father with food, clothes, etc. during his life-time. A n u n k n o w n charge is mentioned in 321, 21 αυλητικψ και προς μονσικάν
(1. — ψ ) . T h e editor explains it as the tax paid by a flute player. Between the t w o documents is a great difference. N o . 321 should not be qualified as " a will in the form of a contract f o r the division of property," as D r . Husselman, p. 259, did, since there is no contract at all. T h e r e are no signatures of the persons involved, except that of the father making the will. O n the contrary in no. 322 all children, t w o sons, t w o daughters, and a grandson, son of a third son w h o had died before, undertake pre-cise bindings in this division of property by their father Psuphis, and declare their consent (v. 35 ίυδοκοϋσι). F u r t h e r m o r e the division enters immediately into existence since the father effectuated the division on the spot (vv. 2, 17, 28, 3 8 : άπο τον νΐν) and just for this reason the usual clause μετά την τιλιντήν is missing. In the same document a similar division is made by Psuphis' wife, the mother of the same children, and also άπο той i w . T h e document is therefore a common division of both parents (divisio parentum inter liberos). B u t the property belonging to each of the parents is separately disposed of. T h e wife gives even a part of her property t o another grandson, the son of a still living son. T h e r e f o r e it cannot be said that " 3 2 2 a is a contract of the same type as 321, but the words /лета την τίΚίντην have been omitted" (p. 2 6 ) , although some provisions are similar and some clauses allude to the f u t u r e death of the parents, vv. 20, 33.
1 3 2 J O U R N A L OF PAPYROLOGY
N o . 3 2 6 is also a diairesis, perfectly preserved w i t h o u t any lacuna. I t concerns a division of a property inherited f r o m their parents by five b r o t h e r s a n d a sister ( l a n d , vineyard, s l a v e s ) . T o g e t h e r w i t h the foregoing texts this d o c u m e n t is instructive f r o m d i f f e r e n t viewpoints. T o a division of slaves r e f e r s also 3 2 3 : f o u r slaves are divided a m o n g t h r e e brothers. T h e youngest receives t w o slaves, b u t one of t h e m is lame, a n d the o t h e r remains in service w i t h the m o t h e r of the brothers.
N o s . 3 2 8 - 3 3 6 are loans, some of t h e m of the w e l l - k n o w n type on security {ώνη iv τίστίΐ, cf. T a u b e n s c h l a g , Law cit. p. 2 0 6 ) . — № 327 is a receipt f o r wages. T h e editor's r e m a r k " t h e c o n t r a c t lacks s u b s c r i p t i o n " is not correct. A n a c k n o w l e d g m e n t of the receipt of money is not a c o n t r a c t , a subscription of t h e paying person is not r e q u i r e d . — I n 3 3 8 the reeipt of a deed, ομολογία « σ τ α σ ί ω ΐ is being a c k n o w l e d g e d . T h e d o c u m e n t is addressed t o the n o m o g r a p h o s K r o n i o n in whose office the respective t r a n s a c t i o n has been concluded. T w o o t h e r d o c u m e n t s are in direct rela-tion w i t h the activity of the director of the record office. N o . 3 5 3 is a g u a r a n t e e of indemnification given t o the same K r o n i o n for h a v i n g issued t o the d e c l a r a n t a c o n t r a c t of cession (parachoresis), p r e p a r e d f o r his f a t h e r , w i t h o u t the proper w a r r a n t , epistalma ( c f . T a u b e n s c h l a g , Law cit. 1 7 0 ) . B o t h this d o c u m e n t and the f o l l o w i n g no. 354, the w h e r e a b o u t s of which are r a t h e r complicated, t h r o w a light on the responsibility of the official in c h a r g e of the grapheion. B o t h d o c u m e n t s g u a r a n t e e indemnifica-tion t o him f r o m any risk he m i g h t have in consequence of his carelessness. T h e t e r m f o r the g u a r a n t e e is άπιρίσπαστον ποιύν, παρίχισθαι., hence the n a m e of such declarations όμ. άπιρισιτάστον ( c f . s u p r a ) . T h e t e r m occurs in 353, 4 and 354, 19 a n d is translated by t h e e d i t o r " f r e e f r o m d a n g e r of a r r e s t " a n d " f r e e f r o m c o n s t r a i n t " respectively. I t is d o u b t f u l , however, w h e t h e r the d i r e c t o r of the grapheion could be arrested f o r inaccuracy or lack of caution in his f u n c t i o n i n g . I t is m o r e likely t h a t his responsibility was merely a financial one and to it r e f e r r e d t h e g u a r a n t e e in question.
A g r o u p of d o c u m e n t s deals w i t h m a t r i m o n i a l relations. N o . 3 3 9 is an evidence for an additional d o w r y constituted d u r a n t e m a t r i m o n i o , iv 1TposSoatL. I n the grapheion register 2 4 0 , 26 the a g r e e m e n t is called pros-phora, w h i c h is a n e w m e a n i n g of the t e r m . B o t h terms appear in 3 4 0 w h e r e " a s e t t l e m e n t of p r o p e r t y m a d e by the p a r e n t or p a r e n t s of a w i f e to t h e h u s b a n d o r to herself in addition t o the c u s t o m a r y d o w r y (φίρνη) a n d the bride's personal belongings. I t m a y be defined a s ' a donatio propter nuptias" ( B o a k , p. 3 1 8 ) . T h e qualification is n o t a p p r o p r i a t e since d.p.n. was a creation by J u s t i n i a n . T h e same kind of g i f t is called in 3 3 9 φιρνη, a n d in o u r d o c u m e n t , v. 1 0 : iv προσδόσα <f>tpvřj<:. T h e d o c u m e n t is, a l t h o u g h a p p a r e n t l y a d r a f t w i t h m a n y corrections, of g r e a t importance because of the m e n t i o n of t w o m a r r i a g e - c o n t r a c t s , an E g y p t i a n and a G r e e k one, cf.
vv. 26ff. ( t h e same in 431, 4 ) , the provisions f o r the d i f f e r e n t f o r m s of separation, VV. 40ff., 53ff., the νράξis ώς ск Π ί ρ σ ο υ της ίνιγονψ etc.
In this connection t h r e e contracts should be mentioned by which the d e c l a r a n t parties ( a l l of t h e m w o m e n ) resign their claims to the property of their p a r e n t s ( o r sister) for ever, nos. 3 5 0 - 3 5 2 . T h i s kind of declarations is called by the technical t e r m ekstasis. T h e declarations of 350 and 3 5 2 are connected w i t h the d o w r y w h i c h the r e n o u n c i n g parties had received w h e n they m a r r i e d . I n 350, 11 the d e c l a r a n t makes a reser-vation as to the w o m e n ' s utensils and clothiftg belonging to her m o t h e r . T h e s e objects do not enter into the resignation. I n 351, however, the cause of the ekstasis is not given. W e wish to add t h a t several other docu-m e n t s not docu-mentioned here individually, and a f e w dedocu-motic papyri ( c f . i n f r a ) may be profitably exploited w h e n dealing w i t h the l a w of m a r r i a g e in E g y p t at the beginning of the R o m a n period (as, f o r instance, mentions of ΐγγράφως or άγράφως owetvai, once in 254, 7 w e read : ή σννονσά μοι κατά νόμους -γννη) a n d w i t h the l a w of g u a r d i a n s h i p as well.
T o a n o t h e r field belong the last G r e e k papyri of the volume. N o . 3 4 6 is a c o n t r a c t f o r apprenticeship of a slave-girl. T h e teacher, a w e a v e r , u n d e r t a k e s t o teach her the a r t of w e a v i n g " a s he himself k n o w s i t . " A clause, so f a r u n k n o w n , is a d d e d : "if I shall not teach her, he declares,— or she shall be considered not to k n o w w h a t she has been t a u g h t , you w i l l perforce have her t a u g h t at m y o w n expense." W h e n we take into con-s i d e r a t i o a t h a t the w e a v e r doecon-s not receive any gratification, the claucon-se seems simply incredible. O n the o t h e r h a n d some usual clauses are w a n t i n g . T h e r e is n o provision about the slave girl's staying in the w e a v e r ' s house ( w h i c h is h o w e v e r likely since her o w n e r uses in his subscription the t e r m ΐχδίδωμαή, n o p e n a l t y clause is settled. T h e provision about her feeding and clothing is not quite c l e a r : it is not said w h o is obliged to do it, either t h e teacher or the o w n e r . T h e editor ( D r . H u s s e l m a n ) explains the text in the sense of the first a l t e r n a t i v e . B u t w h y does the w e a v e r oblige him-self to give the slave a t u n i c of a considerable v a l u e ? If he h a d to clothe her he w o u l d not have stipulated to supply her a t u n i c separately. A n d f u r t h e r -m o r e : the o w n e r of the girl signs the c o n t r a c t too, " u n d e r the f o r e g o i n g conditions." If he had not u n d e r t a k e n any obligation at all, his signature w o u l d have been superfluous.
N o . 3 4 8 is a c o n t r a c t of p a r t n e r s h i p w h i c h are not very f r e q u e n t . C f . T a u b e n s c h l a g , Law cit. 294. T h r e e lessees accept a f o u r t h p a r t n e r in a f o u r year lease of a catoecic a l l o t m e n t . — N o . 3 5 5 : c o n t r a c t for service to a weaver concluded w i t h the w o r k e r himself. Some n o t e w o r t h y p o i n t s : t h e w e a v e r has to pay quite a series of taxes a n d fees f o r the w o r k e r in an extension as not m e t so f a r , beginning w i t h the poll-tax and the ytpbiaubν τίλισμα. T h e salary a m o u n t s to one a r t a b of w h e a t m o n t h l y and a sum of
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
