Chapter 4: Security

1. Surety

Category: Security

Link to Synallagma

Two different clauses are used to record sureties, one from the Ptolemaic period and the other primarily from the Byzantine period. In the former, which appears at the end of the document, the surety is noted by name and is labelled ἔγγυος εἰς ἔκτισιν, ‘surety for the purpose of paying indemnity’ [Type1]. This formulation fits well with the text of the document in its entirety: this scheme, always recording a loan, ensures indemnity in the event of default, even though the composite verb used in it is frequently not ἐκτίνω but rather ἀποτίνω or προσαποτίνω. The document then records, in the genitive, what the indemnity is meant to serve: the contract [e.g., P.Amh. 50.22 (106 BCE, Pathyris): τῶν διὰ τοῦ δανείου τούτου πάντων], the document itself [P.Cair.Zen. I 59001.17 (274/3 BCE, Pitos): τῶν κατὰ τὴν συγγραφήν; P.Sorb. I 17.19 (257 BCE, Mermertha): τῶν κατὰ τὸ σύμβολον], or the object of the indemnity [P.Dion. 23.29 (108 BCE, Hermopolis): τοῦ πυροῦ ἢ τ̣ῆ̣ς γεγρα̣μ̣μένης τιμῆς].

In the late second century BCE, the concept of collateral surety among multiple debtors emerges; the debtors are declared to be each other’s surety [Type1a and Cantarella (1965): 7-17; Yiftach (2012): 377-379]. In this particular case, the surety clause is followed by the praxis which is said to be directed against them all. In P.Amh. II 50.21-27 (106 BCE, Pathyris), the clause reads thus: ἔγγυοι ἀλλήλων εἰς ἔκτεισιν | ²² τῶν διὰ τοῦ δανείου τούτου πάντων | ²³ αὐτοὶ οἱ δεδα(νεισμένοι), ἡ δὲ πρᾶξις ἔστω | ²⁴ Ἐριενούφει ἔκ τε αὐτῶ[ν καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς] | ²⁵ καὶ ὁποτέρου οὗ ἂν βού[ληται καὶ] | ²⁶ ἐκ τῶν τούτοις ὑπ(αρχόντων) πάντω[ν καθάπερ] | ²⁷ [ἐκ δίκης] (‘The borrowers themselves are sureties for each other for the payment of all the liabilities of this loan, and Erienouphis shall have the right of execution upon them together or singly or upon whichever he pleases and upon all their property, as if in accordance to the court sentence ’) (transl.: P.Amh. I, p. 60).

The phrase εἰς ἔκτεισιν, denoting a surety for the payment of indemnity, continues to appear in some Roman-period documents. Now the person who serves as surety affirms this responsibility him/herself, autographically. See, e.g., P.Sakaon 49.19-20 (314 CE, Theadelphia): Αὐρ(ήλιοι) Ἀρίων κα[ὶ Σακα]ῶν ἐγγυώμεθα ὡς πρόκιτ[αι εἰς] ἔκτ(εισιν) τῆ(ς) ἀποδόσ(εως) τοῦ [πυροῦ] καὶ τῆς κριθῆς μ[ετὰ τ]ῆς | ²⁰ [ἡ]μιολείας ὡς πρόκιται (‘We, the Aurelii Arion and Sakaon, guarantee as stated above the return of the wheat and the barley with an interest of fifty per cent as stated above’) (transl.: P.Sakaon, p. 126). In documents from the Roman period, however, the identity or appointment of the surety is generally recorded not in a special clause but in other contexts: commonly the designation of the obligors as co-sureties in the creation clause, the delivery clauses, or in the clause anticipating the praxis. In particular, their designation ἀλληλέγγυοι εἰς ἔκτισιν, as well as the formula ἐξ ἀλληλεγγύης, persists well into the Byzantine period.

The term ἐγγυητής is used, at least in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, primarily for the designation of sureties involved in a person’s liability toward the state. The earliest papyrological evidence is the revenue laws [P.Rev.Laws, e.g., 11-12 (259/8 BCE, Arsinoites?)] but the non-papyrological, the epigraphical, and the literary sources abound (cf., e.g., Partsch (1909): 94-100). This is also largely the case in legal documents. Still within the same context, one encounters the formula ἐγγυῶμαι καὶ ἀναδέχομαι, most commonly embedded, in the infinitive, in a homologia or an act of oath [Type2]. P.Oxy. I 136.34-39 (584 CE, Oxyrhynchos): προσομολογῶ δὲ κἀγὼ Βίκτωρ ὁ ἐγ’γυητὴς | ³⁵ ἐγ’γυᾶσθαι καὶ ἀναδέχεσθαι τὸν προγεγραμμένον Σερῆνον διάκον[ο]ν προνοητὴν διδό{υ}ντα | ³⁶ πληροῦντα τὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ ὑποδοχῆς, καὶ εἰ λοιπαδάριος φανείη ἀκολούθως τῆς (l. τοῖς) αὐτοῦ πιτ’τακίοις | ³⁷ οἴκοθεν καὶ ἐξ ἰδίων μου διδόναι καὶ πληρῶσαι τὴν ὑμῶν ὑπερφ(ύειαν), ἀποταττόμενος | ³⁸ τῷ προνομίῳ τῶν ἐγ’γυητῶν, διαφερόντως δὲ τῇ νεαρᾷ διατάξει τῇ περὶ ἐγ’γυητῶν | ³⁹ καὶ ἀντιφωνητῶν ἐκφωνηθείσῃ (‘I, Victor, surety, do further agree to become surety and bail for the aforesaid Serenus, deacon and administrator, in the discharge and fulfilment of his stewardship; and if he is shown to be in arrears in comparison with his cheques and receipts, to discharge the debt and satisfy your magnificence out of my own private means, renouncing the privilege of sureties, and contrary to the new ordinance issued about sureties and persons accepting responsibility’) (Transl.: P.Oxy. I, p. 216). The object of the surety is, in this case, the primary obligor.

The appointment of a surety in the context of state enterprise may also be reported from the viewpoint of the obligor [Type3]. A common formulation is παρέσχον τινα ἐμαυτοῦ ἐγγυητήν. See, e.g., P.Leit. 12.20-24 (210/1 CE, Unknown Provenance): παρέσχον δὲ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐ̣[γ]γ̣υητὴν | ²¹ Πασίωνα Πεταίριος μητρὸς | ²² ἑτέρας Κεφαλοῦτος ἀπὸ τῆς | ²³ αὐτῆς πόλεως ἑκόντα | ²⁴ καὶ εὐδοκοῦντα (‘And I have furnished as my surety, with his consent and approval, Pasion son of Petairis, whose mother is another Kephalous, of said city’). Type2 and Type3 are commonly used in the same document: the former in the hypographe and the latter in the body of the text (e.g, P.Cair.Isid. 80.16-21, 28: 296 CE, Arsinoites). The same terminology infiltrates contracts among private persons in the Byzantine period. See, in particular, the formulation μετʼ ἐγγυητοῦ καὶ ἀναδόχου, e.g., in the address clause of P.Eirene II 28.6-9 (557 CE, Arsinoiton Polis): [Αὐρήλ]ι̣ος Σερῆν̣ο̣ς̣ υ̣ἱ̣ὸς Κυρ̣ικοῦ μετʼ ἐγ|⁷[γυ]η̣τοῦ καὶ ἀναδόχου τῆς ἑξῆς δη|⁸[λο]υ̣μ̣έ̣ν̣ης̣ ἀ̣ποδόσεως ἐμοῦ Αὐρηλίου | ⁹ [Π]έ̣τρο̣υ υἱοῦ Νείλ̣ου κουφοκεραμουργοῦ̣ (‘I, Aurelios Serenos, son of Kyrikos, with Aurelios Petros son of Neilos, a jar-potter, surety and guarantor for the repayment detailed in the following.…’).

Bibl.: Partsch (1909): 208-218; Taubenschlag (1955): 411-417; Wollf (1956b): 24-25; Cantarella (1965): 45-77; Préaux (1966a): 354-360; Yiftach: (2012).

BGU IV 1175.14-15 (5^A, Alex) [1a, GA]; X 1964.12-14 (221^A-214^A, Tholt) [1]; 1966.4-5 (246^A-221^A, OxN) [1]; 2390.37-39 (160/59^A, HerakN) [1]; CPR XVIII 14.285-286 (231^A/206^A, Theog) [1]; 16.333-336 (231^A/206^A, Theog) [1]; 24.34-35 (232^A/206^A, Theog) [1a]; P.Amh. II 50.21-23 (106^A, Path) [1a]; P.Athen.Xyla 17.10-12 (548/9, HermN) [2]; P.Bagnall 33.16-18 (496, Ox) [ 2a]; P.Cair.Isid. 80.16-21, 28 (296, ArsN) [3][2]; P.Cair.Masp. III 67305.23-24 (568, Antin); P.Cair.Zenon I 59001.16-19,43-46 (274/3^A, Pitos) [1]; II 59173.16-19?, 40-44 (255^A, Phil) [1]; III 59340.16-17 (247^A, Phil) [1]; P.Col. III 54.23-24 (250^A, ArsN) [1a]; P.Dion. 16.29-31 (109^A, Akoris) [1a]; 23.28-30 (108^A, Herm) [1a]; 24.27-29 (106^A, Herm) [1a]; 25.33-35 (104^A, Herm) [1a]; 27.24-26 (113/2^A, Herm) [1a]; P.Flor. III 384.108-112 (489?, Herm); P.Freib. III 12b.13-16 (172^A-162^A, UP) [1]; P.Grenf. I 18.22-24 (131^A, Path) [1a]; 20.14-16 (127^A, Path) [1a]; II 17.7-8 (136^A, Thebes) [1]; 18.18-22 (127^A, Path) [1a]; 27.16-19, 19-21 (103^A, Path) [1a]; P.Hamb. I 24 (223^A, ArsN) [1a]; 38.13-15 (182, LetopN) [2]; 58.5-6 (83^A, UP) [2]; II 185.6-9 (245^A, OxN) [2]; 186.8-13 (III^mA, OxN) [2]; P.Köln V 218.13-14 (215/4^A, UP) [1]; 232.19-20 (330/380, Terenythis) [2]; VIII 350.39-42 (143^A, Krok) [1]; XVI 642.18-19 with 643.11-12 (256^A, HerakN?) [1]; P.Kron. 38.15-21 (137, Teb) [3]; P.Lips. I 4.33-34 (293, Herm) [2]; P.Lond. II 311.23-25 (149, Herakleia) [2]; V 1711.77-96 (566-573, Antin) [2]; P.Mich. XX 800.17-18 (354, Ox) [2]; 809.12-14, 16-21 (372, Ox) [2]; 813.15-17, 19-20 (373, Ox) [2]; 814.12-15, 16-17 (373, Ox) [2]; 815.11-13, 13-15 (365?, Ox) [2]; P.Mil. I 5.22-24 (38, Thead) [1]; P.Oxy. I 136.34-39, 45-48 (583, Ox); IV 836.22-25 (66/5^a or 15/4^A, Ox) [1a]; VI 905.16-18 (170, OxN) [2]; XVI 1976.23-24 (582, Ox) [2, hypographe]; XLIX 3485.17-18 (38, Ox) [1a, GA]; LXIII 3495.107-117 (499, Ox) [2, hypographe]; LVIII 3952.40-46, 54-58 (288, Ox) [2]; LXI 4530. 12-17, 21-23, 33-36, 42-43 (288?, HerakN) [3][2]; LXXXIV 5474.46-48 (617/8, Ox) [2]; P.Oxy.Elmagh. 11.24-30 (266?, Ox) [3]; P.Paramone 18.27-29 (620^A, Herm) [2]; P.Petr. III 55a.16-18 (235/4^A, Krok?) [1]; P.Prag. II 163.4-6 (222, UP) [3]; P.Rain.Cent. 123.24 (478, Phebichis) [2]; P.Ryl. IV 586.27-30 (99^A, Ox) [1]; 587.19-20 (87^A, Teb) [1a]; 601.31 (26^A, PtolEu) [2a]; P.Sorb. I 17.17-18 (scr.int.), 18-20, 23-25 (scr.ext.) (257^A, Merertha) [1] [1] [2]; P.Stras. I 40.38-50 (569, Antin) [2: but different formulation]; VI 557.27-28 (291, Herm) [2]; P.Tebt. I 109.25-26 (93^A, Kerkeosiris) [1a]; III.1 815 2^r.2.48-51, ll. 48-50 (223/2^A, Teb) [1]; 815 2^v.1.1-14 ll. 11-14 (223/2^A, Teb) [1]; 815 2^v.1.15-22, l. 22 (223/2^A, Teb) [1]; 815 2^v.2.30-40, ll. 36-39 (223/2^A, Teb) [1]; 815 4^r.1.23-29, ll. 28-29 (223/2^A, Teb) [1]; PSI IV 389.7-8 (243^A, Phil) [1]; VII 802.6-8 (85/6, Herm) [2, with egrapse]; VIII 799.5-8 (VI, Herm) [2]; 963.30-32 (579, Ox) [2]; 964.14-18, 23-26 (520/1, 535/6 or 550/1, OxN) [2unique]; IX 1037.38-39 (301, Ox) [2, hypographe]; XII 1249.57-60 (265, Ox) [2]; XIII 1311.10-11, 32-33 (136^A, Berenikis Thesmophorou) [2]; SB I 5252.31-33 (65, Nilopolis) [2]; III 6709.6,17 (259, Birta?) [1]; 7169.6-26, l. 16 (II^A, UP) [1]/[1a]; V 7532.19-20 (74^A, Nilopolis) [1]; VI 9226.1-10 (II/III, SokN) [2]; XII 11058.12 (244^A, Ox) [1]; 11059.9-10 (244^A, Ox) [1]; XVI 12486.21-24 (470, HermN) [2, hypographe]; XVI 12716.20-21 (129^A, Path) [1a]; 12812.12 (255, Phil)?; 12986.9-10 (131^A-113^A, PathN) [1a]; XXII 15240.27-30 (156^A, Ammonias) [1] (and bebaiotes); XXX 17328.13-14 (546/561, Herak) [2, hypographe]; 17622.20-21 (293, Herm) [2, hypographe]; 17623.19 (293, Herm) [2, hypographe]; SPP XX 139.19-21 (531, ArsPol) [2].

2. No Surrender of Debtor by Surety

Category: Security

Link to Synallagma

In the loan contract BGU IV 1145.40-44 (5 BCE, Alexandria), a female surety is to surrender the debtors to the creditor ‘in open court’ in the event of default. If she fails to do so, she herself becomes liable to seizure and detention until she settles the debts with interest: ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἡ Διδύμη μὴ π[αρ]έχηται τ̣[ὴν] | ⁴¹ Λύκαν καὶ Διονύσιον τῷ Ἀ̣χ̣ι̣λ(λεῖ) ἐνφανεῖς, εἶναι καὶ αὐ(τὴν) ἀγωγίμη(ν) κ̣α̣ὶ̣ [συνέχεσθαι μέχρι τοῦ ἐκτεῖσαι τὸ] | ⁴² προκ(είμενον) δάνη(ον) (l. δάνει(ον)) καὶ τοὺς τόκ(ους) καὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν τῷ Ἀχιλ(λει)  ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣εῖσθαι κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἐ̣ξ̣ α̣[ὐ(τῆς)] | ⁴³ Διδύμη(ς) καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχ(όντων) αὐ(τῇ) πάντω(ν) καθάπ(ερ) ἐγ δίκης ἀκύρω(ν) οὐσῶ(ν) κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ὧ̣ν̣ [ἐὰν] | ⁴⁴ ἐπενένκ(ῃ) (l. ἐπενέγκ(ῃ)) π̣ί̣σ̣τ̣ε̣(ων) πασῶ(ν) σκέπ(ης) πάσ(ης) (‘Should Didyme not surrender the aforesaid Lyka and Dionysios to Achilles in open court, let her be liable to seizure and detention until she defrays said debt and interest, and let Achilles have the right of execution against Didyme herself and from all her assets, as if resulting of a court action, rendering all deeds of protection or any form of shelter inapplicable’.)

3. Restraint Clause

Category: Capacity, Security

Link to Synallagma

The restraint clause is attested from the early Roman to the Byzantine period. Although most evidence stems from the Oxyrhynchite and Hermopolite nomes, as well as from Augustan Alexandria, it is also attested in the Arsinoites. The clause is recorded in one lease contract (P.Lond. III 1166.17-19: 43 CE, Hermopolis) and several Oxyrhynchite wills (e.g., P.Oxy. III 489.10-11: 117 CE, Oxyrhynchos, and below) but is best attested in loan contracts, where it is used to encumber an asset in order to secure a debt. The restraint clause is commonly recorded in connection with a hypallagma (e.g., BGU IV 1151.2.42-44: 3 BCE, Alexandria, and below), hypotheke (e.g., P.Bas. 7.15-17: 117-138 CE, Arsinoites, and below), the menein clause (e.g., P.Oxy.Hels. 31.21-23: 86 CE, Oxyrhynchos, and below), and the antichresis (e.g., BGU I 101.15-23: 115 CE, Arsinoites). The restraint clause, however, may be introduced independently, creating the encumbrance per se (P.Mich. IX 566.14-19: 86 CE, Hiera Nesos, and below).

Within the clause, two formulations are attested. The first [Type1] is introduced by the prohibition formula, which in this context is always μὴ /οὐκ ἔξεστι followed by infinitives reporting the prohibited acts (e.g., P.Flor. I 1.8-9: 153 CE, Hermopolis, below). The most common verbs here signify the conveyance of title to the object: sale (πωλεῖν, πωλῆσαι, διαπωλῆσαι), mortgage (ὑποτίθεσθαι, ὑποθέσθαι, μεθυποθέσθαι), and, more generally, any type of disposition (ἐπιτελεῖν, ἐπιτελέσαι, καταχρηματίζειν, καταχρηματίσαι, οἰκονομεῖν, οἰκονομίαν θέσθαι). Other verbs, such as ‘lease further out’ (μεταμισθοῦν) or to ‘take away’ (ἀποσπᾶν, ἀπολαβεῖν), are rare. Cf., e.g., P.Oslo II 40a.15-18 (150 CE, Oxyrhynchos), is paradigmatic: οὐκ ἐξόν|¹⁶[τος] μοι, \ἐ/ὰν μ̣ὴ̣ πρότερον ἀποδῶ τὰς δραχμὰς ἑξακοσίας καὶ τοὺς τόκους, πωλεῖν | ¹⁷ [οὐδὲ] ὑ̣π̣ο̣τ̣ί̣θε̣σ̣θ̣αι οὐδʼ ἄλλως καταχρηματίζειν τὴν δούλην Ἰσαροῦν οὐδὲ τὰ ἐσόμενα | ¹⁸ [ἐξ αὐ]τῆς ἔκγονα (‘It will not be allowed for me, unless I first return the six-hundred drachms and the interest, neither to sell, nor to mortgage, nor to undertake anything else with regard to the slave Isarous or to her future offspring’). The second type [Type2] is composed of παρέξομαι/φυλάσσω + the object in the accusative + adjectives recording the unencumbered state of the object (e.g., P.Flor. I 28 (177/8/9 CE, Hermopolis) and below); especially common, in the Roman period, is the combination ἀνεξαλλοτρίωτον καὶ ἀκαταχρημάτιστον (‘unalienated and not encumbered with debt’) (e.g., BGU IV 1147.26-28: 14/3 BCE, Alexandria). A more detailed account, derived from the list of verbs mentioned above, is recorded in P.Cair.Masp. III 67309.33-37 (569 CE, Antinoopolis): καὶ ἑ̣τοίμως | ³⁴ ἔχω ἐ̣γ̣ώ τε καὶ παντοῖοί μου κληρονόμοι̣ φ̣υ̣λ̣άξαι ὑ̣π̣ὸ̣ σ̣ὲ̣ τὴν καθαρὰν | ³⁵ νομ̣ὴ̣ν καὶ δεσποτείαν ἄπρατον ἀν̣υπόθε̣τ̣ο̣ν ἀνεπιδά̣ν̣ι̣σ̣τον ἑτέρῳ̣ δ̣ανίῳ | ³⁶ ἀνυπ̣άλ̣λακτον, μὴ προυπ̣οκειμ̣ένη̣ν οἵῳ δήποτε ὀφ̣λ̣ήματι | ³⁷ δημοσίῳ [τε] καὶ ἰδιωτικῷ (‘And I and all my heirs (be they of whatever category) shall keep possession and ownership under your control, clear, not subject to sale, mortgage, use as security for another loan or as a hypallagma, and not already subject to any  public or private debt whichsoever’).

Bibl.: Rabel (1909): 26-35; Manigk (1910a): 34; Schwarz (1911): 56-58; Wollentin (1961): 49; Pestman (1983): 295-297; Rupprecht (1997): 871-875; Yiftach (2021a): 169.

BGU I 101.15-23 (115, ArsN) [1, antichresis]; III 741.36-41 (143, Alex?) [2, hypotheke]; IV 1053.52-55 (13^A, Alex) [see van Minnen ZPE (2016)] [independent]; 1147.26-28 (13^A, Alex) [2, independent]; 1151.2.42-44 (13^A, Alex) [2, hypallagma]; 1167.37-74, ll. 59-63 (13/2^A, Alex) [1, hypallagma]; XI 2043.16-19 (150, SokN) [2, independent]; CPR XVIIa 5a.4-6 (316, Herm) [2, hypallagma]; XVIIb 4.1-8, ll. 3-4 [1]; P.Athen. 21.17-22 (131, Kar) [1, independent]; P.Bas. 7.15-17 (117-138, ArsN) [1, hypotheke]; P.Cair.Masp. III 67309.33-37 (569, Antin) [2, hypotheke]; P.Charite 34.19-20 (318/348, Herm) [2, hypallagma]; P.Erl. 62.8-13 (II, UP) [2]; Flor. I 1.8-9 (153, Herm) [1, hypotheke]; 28.6 (177/8/9, Herm) [2, hypotheke]; 81.15-17 (103, Herm) [1, hypotheke]; P.Fouad I 49.17-19 (100, Teb)?; P.Genov. I 32.14-15 (155, Antin) [2, independent]; P.Heid. IV 330.1-4 (VI/VII, Ox) [hypotheke?]; P.Köln. III 156.1-5 (582-602, Antin?) [2]; P.Lips. I 10.1.5-2.11, ll. 1.40-2.1 (178, Herm) [2, hypallagma]; P.Lond. II 311.13-14 (149, Herakleia) [1, hypallagma]; III 870.11-14 (IV, Panop) [1, hypotheke]; 1166.17-19 (43, Herm) [1]; 1168.9-10 (44, Herm); P.Mich. V 321.21-22 (42, Teb) ; IX 566.14-19 (86, Hiera Nesos) [1, independent]; P.Oslo II 40a.15-18 (150, Ox) [1, menein]; 40b.15-18 (150, Ox) [1, menein]; P.Oxf. 11.15-17 (149, Hiera Nesos) [2 (παρέξεσθαι*), hypotheke?]; P.Oxy. III 489.10-11 (117, Ox) [1]; 491.7-8 (126, Ox) [1]; 492.7-9 (130, Ox) [1]; 506.39-42 (143, Ox) [1, menein]; 507.28-32 (146, Ox) [1, independent]; XXXIV 2722.34-38 (154, Ox) [1, menein]; XLVII 3355.11-14 (535, Ox) [1, hypotheke]; P.Oxy.Hels. 31.21-23 (86, Ox) [1, menein]; P.Panop. 21.20-21 (315, Panop) [1, hypotheke]; P.Petr.² I 25.8-38, ll. 33-35 (226/5^A, Krok) [1, will]; P.Ryl. II 177.10-11 (246, Herm) [2, hypallagma]; P.Stras. VIII 732.8-10 (228/9, Herm) [2, hypallagma]; 740.5-9 (VI, Herm) [2]; 746.9-10 (II, ArsN) [hypallagma]; P.Vind.Worp 10.13-16 (143/4, SokN?) [1, hypallagma]; P.Warr. 10.23-27 (591/2, Ox) [1, hypotheke]; PSI III 239.27-31 (601, Ox) [independent]; V 470.10-12 (103, Herm) [2, hypotheke]; XIII 1340.14-16 (420, Petne) [1, hypotheke]; SB I 4703.26 (VII, ArsN) [independent]; 5285.36-43 (607, PanopN) [1, hypotheke]; XVIII 13234.12-15 (98/9, Haueris) [1, independent]; XIV 11705.6-9 (213, ArsN) [2, hypotheke]; 13042.12-13 (CE, Ox) [1, enoikesis]; XXX 17667.14-17 (603, HerakN).

4. Hypotheke

Category: Security

Link to Synallagma

The placement of an object as hypotheke elicits the insertion of several clauses into the loan contract. Apart from an account of the hypotheke itself, the document may record: (1) the restraint imposed on the debtor’s disposition of the object, (2) the terms and modalities of foreclosure by the creditor in the case of default, (3) an account of the creditor’s right to dispose of the object in the event of a possessory pledge, and (4) a clause anticipating the registration of the hypotheke with the bibliotheke enkteseon. Not all clauses appear in each and every document. A clause anticipating the foreclosure of the asset by the pledgee is inserted into documents from the Ptolemaic and Roman periods but not into their Byzantine counterparts. The registration of the pledge with the bibliotheke enkteseon is, naturally, only recorded as long as this archive existed (viz., between the mid-first and the early fourth century CE). By contrast, the clause entitling the pledgee to dispose of the object immediately is recorded only in documentation from the Byzantine period.

This sweeping change between the Roman and Byzantine periods in the elements of the document relating to the hypotheke is manifested in the clause that records the hypotheke itself. In all periods, the hypotheke is recorded immediately after the description of the loan, but we do observe a watershed at the end of the third century if not before. Until then, a description of the pledged object is appended to the clause recording the loan, which is said to have been given ἐπὶ ὑποθήκῃ with the object following (initially) in the dative or (later) in the genitive. The scribe would then exert himself to give an extensive account of the object. In doing so, he would rely on the method of identification employed in sales: neighbouring village or town for land (περί + acc.), village or town for the location of buildings (ἐν + dat.), type of administrative category, productivity status, dimensions (in the case of building and city plots), and abutters. The last-mentioned seem especially indispensable; they are absent in only one document, P.Oxy. II 270.16-26 (94 CE, Oxyrhynchos). Typical and well-preserved cases are P.Tebt. III.1 817.12-17 (182 BCE, Krokodilopolis, Arsinoites), recording a house and a yard, and P.Oxy. XVII 2134.14-18 (170 CE, Oxyrhynchos) recording land.

P.Tebt. III.1 817.12-17 (182 BCE, Krokodilopolis, Arsinoites): ἐπὶ ὑποθήκηι τῆι | ¹³ ὑπαρχούσηι αὐτῶι οἰκίαι καὶ αὐλῆι καὶ τοῖς συγκυροῦσι πᾶσι τοῖς | ¹⁴ οὖσιν ἐν Ἀπιάδι τῆς Θεμίστου μερίδος, ὧν μέτρα νότου ἐπὶ βορρᾶ[ν] | ¹⁵ πήχεις εἴκοσι, λιβὸς ἐπʼ ἀπηλιώτην πήχεις εἴκοσι, γείτονες δ̣[ὲ] | ¹⁶ [ν]ότου Σωπάτρας οἰκία, βορρᾶ καὶ ἀπηλιώτου ῥύμαι, λιβὸς Ἁρπάλο̣[υ] | ¹⁷ [κ]αὶ Σωστράτου οἰκία, ‹ › αὐτοῖς ἐν τῶι προγεγραμμένωι χρόνωι (….. ‘on the security of the house belonging to him and courtyard and all appurtenances situated at Apias in the division of Themistos, of which the measurements are, from south to north twenty cubits, from west to east twenty cubits, and the adjacent areas, on the south the house of Sopatra, on the north and east streets, on the west the house of Harpalos and Sostratos belonging to them on the date written above’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 317). P.Oxy. XVII 2134.14-18 (170 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἐπὶ ὑποθήκης κατοικικῆς σιτοφόρου σπορίμου | ¹⁵ (hand 2) πλήρης (hand 1) ἐξ [ὀ]ρθ[ο]γωνίου ἀρουρῶν τεσσάρων ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπαρχουσῶν μοι περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν Χύσιν ἐν Ἑρμοπολείτῃ γ̣ῆ̣ς̣ | ¹⁶ ἐν ἀφέσ‹ε›ι ἐκ τοῦ Παυσανίου κλήρου ἀρουρῶν πέντε οὐσῶν ἐν κοιναῖς καὶ ἀδαι[ρ]έτοις ὅλαις ἀρούραις εἴκοσι | ¹⁷ π[ρ]ὸς Χεσφῖβ̣ιν Πετοσε[ίρι]ος καὶ ἄλλους, ὧν ὅλων γείτονες νότου γύης, βορρᾶ κληρονόμων Σατο[ρν]είλου | ¹⁸ κ[α]ὶ ἄλλων, ἀπηλιώτου ὅριον κλήρων, λιβὸς τῶν αὐτῶν κληρονόμων Σατορνείλου (‘On the security of four arourae in full, of rectangular shape, out of five arouras of catoecic corn-bearing arable concessional land in the holding of Pausanias belonging to me near said Chysis in the Hermopolite nome and forming part of a total of twenty arouras held jointly and indivisibly with Chesphibis son of Petosiris and others, the areas adjacent to all that are on the south a field, on the north the property of the heirs of Satornilus, on the east the boundary of the holdings, on the west the property of the said heirs of Satornilus.’ (transl.: editio princeps, p. 247).

As indicated by the foregoing passage, the traditional formulation focuses on the encumbrance of landed property. It is perhaps for this reason that in P.Genov. II 62 from 98 CE Oxyrhynchos, the only early Roman document recording an encumbrance of chattel, the scribe uses a different formulation. The debtor pledges sodium carbonate as security. In this case, rather than appending the description of the mortgage to the clause recording the loan, it is recorded in an independent clause introduced by the verb πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν ὑποτίθημί σοι, with the encumbered object in the accusative. P.Genov. II 62.10-16 (98 CE, Oxyrhynchos): πρὸς δὲ τὴν τούτων ἀσφάλειαν ὑποτιθέναι σοὶ ἃς ἔχω τοῦ | ¹¹ νίτρου ἑλληνικοῦ ἀρτάβας εἴκοσι τέσσαρας καὶ ἄλλου | ¹² νίτρου ὁλκῆς τάλαντα τέσσαρα ἀποκείμενα ἐν οἴκῳ | ¹³ ἐπὶ ἀπηλιω(τικῷ) πυλῶνι τῆς Τααρπαήσιος οἰκίας ἐπʼ ἀμφόδ(ου) | ¹⁴ Νότου Κρηπεῖδος ὧν τῷ ἀριθμῷ ̣ ̣ ̣  ̣ κωλυθε ̣ ̣  ̣  ̣ | ¹⁵ οὗ οἴκου [Τααρ]παήσιος ̣ ̣  ̣  ̣ ἐπισφραγισθέντος τοῦ αὐτοῦ | ¹⁶ οἴκου ὑπʼ ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ (‘For the security of these objects I have mortgaged for you two artabae of Greek nitron and of a different nitron four talents by weight stored in a room in the east gate-house of the house of Taarpaesis in the quarter of the South bank [….] a room that has been sealed by me and you’).

While the older clause had focused on the encumbrance of landed property and slaves, in the case cited above and in others from the late Roman and Byzantine periods, a new formulation is commonly used for the posting of chattels and persons as security as well. Concurrently, in SB I 4370.19-32 (229 CE, Herakleopolites) the same formulation is invoked to record the encumbrance of a piece of land. The new formulation is then applied across-the-board in the Byzantine period. In the Byzantine period one encounters much flexibility in the choice of the encumbered object that is not evident in the older formulation: slaves, free-persons, species and genus chattels, and the right of possession (cf., e.g., P.Warr. 10.19-23: 591/2, Oxyrhynchos). P.Panop. 21.11-19 (315 CE, Panopolis), recording the encumbrance of 6 arouras of arable land, reverts to the means of description of the encumbered object used in earlier counterparts: location, area, legal category, productivity, and abutters of the land in question. These elements, however, are now embedded into a structure of the type recorded two centuries earlier in P.Genov. II 62: καὶ] π̣[ρ]ὸ̣ς̣ τ̣ὴ̣ν̣ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀργυρίω[ν] ἀσφάλειαν ὑπ[οθέσθ]α̣ι̣ | ¹² σοι τὰς ὑπαρχούσας μοι σιτικὰς ἀρ[ο]ύρ[ας] ἓξ περὶ τὴν μη[τ]ρόπολι̣[ν] | ¹³ πεδίου Πμούχ̣ε̣[ω]ς κληρου[(χικῆς)] τάξεως ἐπὶ κοί(της) ρ̣λ̣ϛ̣, ὧν ἀρο[υ]ρῶν σ̣ι̣τ̣ι̣[κ]ῶ̣[ν] | ¹⁴ δύο ἔσχον ἀπὸ κληρονομικοῦ [δ]ικαίου, τὰς [δὲ] λοιπὰς ἀρ[ο]ύρας τέσ|¹⁵σαρας ἀπὸ δικαίο[υ] ἀντικαταλλαγ[ῆ]ς γενομένης πρὸς Ἱερακίω[ν]α̣ | ¹⁶ ἀδελφόν μου ἐπ[ὶ] τῆς παρελθούσης Οὐολουσιανοῦ καὶ Ἀν[ν]ιανοῦ | ¹⁷ ὑπατείας μηνὶ Ἐπεὶφ κβ δι(ὰ) Ἀρτεμιδώρου συναλλαγματογρ(άφου) | ¹⁸ πόλεως ἀκολούθως αἷς ἔχω ἀσφαλείοις καὶ ταῖς κατʼ ἀγρὸν φαι|¹⁹νομέναις αὐτῶν γιτνίαις (l. γειτνίαις) (‘And for the security of the same money, I encumber to you the six grain-bearing arouras that belong to me near the metropolis in Pmouchis district of the klerouchic category in parcel number 136, of which grain producing arouras I received two by inheritance and the remaining four by exchange that was conducted with my brother Hierakion in the foregoing consulship of Volusianus and Annianus, on the 23^rd of the month of Epeiph through Artemidoros, the municipal scribe, in accordance with the document that I hold, and records of their neighbours conducted on site’).

Bibl.: Rabel (1909): 28-34; Schwarz (1911): 17-29; Manigk (1911): 275-285; Tenger (1993): 106-110; Rupprecht (1995a): 426-428; (1997): 293-298; Yiftach (2019): 155-164.

BGU III 741.15-22 (143, Alex?) [1, land]; VI 1279.1-7 ? (III^mA, UP) [land]; CPR I 119.1-10 ? (II, ArsN) [land]; XVIIb 36.1-3 (217/8, Panop) [land]; 38.6? (217/8, Panop) [land?]; O.Bankes 1.4-6 (123, Eleph) [1, house]; P.Amh. II 98.14-15 (211, Herm) [1, house]; P.Amst. I 45.12-15 (V/VI, ArsN) [2, land]; P.Bas. II 29.7-13 (117-138, ArsN) [1, house]; P.Brem. 68.5-6 (99, Herm?) [1, land]; 69.5-6 (98, Herm) [1, land]; P.Cair.Masp. II 67151.263-264 (570, Antin) [2, cash]; III 67309.20-30 (569, Antin) [2, house]; P.Coll.Youtie II 92.28-32 (569, Antin) [2, person]; P.David 3.7 ? (175^A-170^A, ArsN); P.Dubl. 25.5-10 (VI/VII, HerakN) [2, house]; P.Dura 17.4-6 (c. 180, Dura Europos) [1, land]; P.Edfou I 2.8-9 (619, Apol) [2, βούθηλις]; P.Flor. I 1.4-5 (153, Herm) [1, oil-press]; 81.6-9 (103, Herm) [1, land]; P.Freib. III 36.1-8 (179/8^A, Phil) [1?, land]; P.Genov. II 62.10-16 (98, Ox) [2, nitron]; P.Hamb. I 28.6-7 (II^A, ArsN) [1, slave]; P.Herm. 30.15-17 (552, Ox?) [2, land]; P.Hever 66.6-8 (99/109, Phil, Arabia?); P.Horak 27.13-18 (603/4, Herak) [2, house]; P.Kell. I 43.16-27 (374 or 387, Kellis) [2, house]; P.Köln VII 322.6-10 (VII, HerakN) [2, vineyard]; P.Laur. II 28.6 (138-160, HermN) [1, house]; 76.2-5 (IV^m, UP); P.Lond. II 390.5 (VI/VII, ArsN) [ed.: ἐφʼ ᾧ] τ̣ε σε λαβεῖν ἐν ὑποθήκῃ ὅπου βούλει ἐκ̣ τῶν ἐμῶν ἀμπελικῶν χωρίων;]; III 870.6-11 (IV, Panop) [2, house]; 1319.4-7 (544, Herm) [τῆς προτέρας ἡμῶν ὑποθήκης τῆς οὔσης κτλ.]; V 1719.13-15 (556, Thebes) [2, jewellery]; 1723.11-15 (577, Sy) [2, house]; 1737.13-16 (613, Sy) [2, jewellery]; P.Mich. IX 568.8-21 (90, PtolEu); P.Michael. 42a.7-21 (566, Aphr) [2, land]; P.Oxy. II 270.16-26 (94, Ox) [1, land]; III 508.18-20 (102, Ox) [2, land, not specific]; XVII 2134.14-18 (170, Ox) [1, land]; XLVII 3355.2-7 (535, Ox) [2, house]; LXIII 4397.21-26 (545, Ox); P.Panop. 21.11-19 (315, Panop) [2, land]; P.Rain.Cent. 86.12-15 (381, HerakN) [2, bowl et al.]; P.Stras. I 52.4-5 (151, Herm) [1, land]; VII 636.9? (III, Herm) [2?, slave?]; VIII 720.6-8 ? (VI, UP); IX 882.8-11 (c. 180^A, Phil?) [1]; 898.3-5 (III, UP) [2?, land]; P.Tebt. III.1 817.12-17 (182^A, Krok) [1, house]; III.2 970.11-14 (II^eA, KrokArs) [1, slave]; P.Vindob. G 20714.9-13 (V^l/VI, Herak) [2, land]; P.Warr. 10.19-23 (591/2, Ox) [2, land]; P.Yadin 11.3-6 (scr.int.), 15-20 (scr.ext.) (124, En Gedi) [1, yard]; PSI VI 710.11-14 (II, Ox?) [2, slave]; XIII 1340.9-13 (420, Petne) [2, land]; SB I 4370.19-32 (229, HerakN) [2: π̣αρακ̣[ατα]τ[ί]θησι, land]; 4772.a (IV-VII, ArsN); 4781.9? (566-622, ArsN); 5285.21-33 (607, PanopN) [2, house]; VI 9190.9-20? (131 Talao) [1 (ἐπʼ ἀσφαλείᾳ), land]; XIV 11705.2-4 (213, ArsN) [1, house + facilities]; XVI 12472.14-21 (525/6, OxN) [2, land]; XVIII 13167.4-15 (II^m, UP); 16656.10-14 = P.Euphr. 13 (243, Beth Phuraia).

5. Destruction or Debasement of Hypothecated Property

Category: Security

Link to Synallagma

In eight loan contracts with hypothekai from the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, the text discusses the destruction or debasement of the mortgage, e.g., the Ptolemaic P.Tebt. III.1 817.23-27 (II^e, BCE, Krokodilopolis) runs ἐὰν δὲ μὴ | ²⁴ βεβαιοῖ ἢ μὴ παρέχηται καθὰ γέγραπται ἢ κίνδυνός τις γένη|²⁵ται περὶ τὴν ὑποθήκην ταύτην ἤ̣τ̣ο̣ι̣ περὶ πᾶσαν ἢ μέρος | ²⁶ αὐτῆς τρόπωι ὡιποτοῦν (l. ᾡποτοῦν), ἀποδότω Σώστρατος Ἀπολλωνίωι | ²⁷ τὸ δάνειον τοῦτο ἐντὸς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ παραχρῆμα. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀπο|²⁸δῶι καθὰ γέγραπται, ἀποτεισάτω Σώστρατος Ἀπολλωνίωι | ²⁹ παραχρῆμα τὸ δάνειον ἡμιόλιον καὶ τοῦ ὑπερπεσόντος | ³⁰ χρόνου τόκον ὡς ἐγ δύο δραχμῶν τῆι μνᾶι τὸν μῆνα ἕκαστ[ον] (‘If he (viz., the debtor) does not guarantee the security or produce it as stated or if any risk occurs with regard to this security in whole or part in any way, Sostratos shall repay this debt to Apollonios forthwith within the year; and if he does not repay it as stated, Sostratos shall forthwith forfeit to Apollonios the loan increased by one half and for the overtime interest at the rate of 2 drachmas per mina per month’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 317, with minor modifications).

In some Roman counterparts of this document, the view that the lender forfeits his ability to collect the debt upon the loss of the hypotheke is challenged. See in particular SB XIV 11705.12-16 (213 CE, Arsinoites): καὶ ἐάν̣, ὃ μὴ γέ[νοιτο], συμβῇ κίνδυνόν τινα ἢ ἐλάσσωμα ἢ ἕ|¹³τερόν τι τῷ κα[θόλου πρᾶγμα ἐπ]ακολ[ουθῆσαι] περὶ τὴν ὑποθήκην ἢ περὶ μέρος αὐτῆς μη|¹⁴δὲ̣ν̣ [εἶ]ναι πρὸς τ̣[ὸν] Οὐα[λέριον] μηδ̣[ὲ τὸ δ]άν‹ε›ιον ἢ τοὺ[ς] τ̣όκους, ἀλλὰ καὶ οὕτως γείνε̣σ̣|¹⁵θαι α̣ὐτῷ τὴ[ν π]ρᾶξι[ν ἐκ τῶ]ν ἄλλω̣[ν] τοῦ ὑποχρέου ὑπαρχόντων πάντων διὰ τὸ ἀκίν|¹⁶δυν[ο]ν παντὸς [κιν]δύνου τ̣ὸ̣ν̣ δαν‹ε›ιστ[ὴν] [γε]γ̣ονέναι (‘And if—may it never be the case!— any accident or reduction or anything else at all happens to the mortgaged property or any part of it, neither the loan nor the interest will in any way be the responsibility of Valerius, who will retain the right of execution against all the property of the debtor because the loan is guaranteed against all risks’) (transl.: Gignac (1976): 96).

Hermopolite texts stress the creditor’s right to compensation for the conveyance tax he paid on account of the hypotheke, and related expenses. Cf., e,g., P.Flor. I 1.9-11 (153 CE, Hermopolis): ἐὰν δέ τις κίνδυνος [γ]ένηται περὶ τήνδε τὴν ὑποθήκην πᾶσαν ἢ μέρος τρόπῳ ᾡτινιοῦν ἀποδότω ἡ δεδαν‹ε›ισμένη τῇ δεδαν‹ε›ικυίῃ ἢ τοῖς παρʼ αὐτῆς τὰ ὀφειλομένα πάντα καὶ τοῦ ὑπε[ρ]πε|¹⁰σόντος μετὰ τὴν προθεσμίαν χρόνου τόκον δραχμιαῖον ἑκάστης μνᾶς κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον καὶ ἃ ἐὰν ἀπαιτηθῇ ἡ δεδαν‹ε›ικυῖα ὑπὲρ τῆσδε τῆς ὑποθήκης τέλη καὶ ἃς ἐὰν ποιήσηται δαπάνας ὁμοίως σὺν τόκοις ἕκαστα παρ\α/χρῆμα γεινομένης αὐτῇ ἢ τοῖς παρʼ αὐτῆς τῆς πράξεως παρά τε τῆς δεδαν‹ε›ισμένης καὶ ἐκ [τ]ῆσ|¹¹δε τῆς ὑποθήκης καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῇ πάντων καθάπερ ἐκ δίκης (‘And if any accident occurs to this mortgage as a whole or in any part in any way, let the borrower immediately repay the lender or those acting on her behalf all that is owed, as well as each month an interest of one drachm per mina for overtime after the expiration of the debt, and all taxes to which the creditor shall be liable on account of the mortgaged property, and all costs that she shall incur, all of which with interest, the lender and her representatives having the right of execution from the borrower and the mortgaged asset and all her other properties as if resulting from a court action’). Compare D. 20.6.8pr: Sicut de re corporali extincta, ita et usu fructu exstincto pignus hypothecave perit.

Bibl.: Manigk (2010b): 290-292; Schwarz (1911): 21-23; Pringsheim (1950): 456-461; Wollentin (1961): 27-29, 37-54; Kaser (1971): 469 n. 69; Rupprecht (1995a): 427, 429; (1997b): 293-294; Yiftach (1919): 157.

BGU III 741.32-36 (143, Alex?); P.Flor. I 1.9-11 (153, Herm); P.Oxy. III 507.32-36 (146, Ox); P.Stras. I 52.10-12 (151, Herm); P.Tebt. III.1 817.23-27 (182^A, Krok); ΙΙΙ.2 970.23-28 (II^eA, Krok); SB XIV 11705.12-16 (213, ArsN).

6. Hypallagma

Category: Security

Link to Synallagma

The hypallagma (lit.: ‘substitution’) is a special type of security posted for landed property or slaves. In its earliest form, evidenced in the source material from Augustan Alexandria, the hypallagma is recorded in, or appended to, the praxis clause. Recorded in a special instrument that the debtor gives the creditor for the duration of the debt, it documents the object of the mortgage and is then followed by a restraint clause. BGU IV 1147.20-28 (14/3 BCE, Alexandria): [τῆς πράξ]εως γινομένης τῶι Διονυσίωι | ²¹ [ἔκ τε αὐτῆς] Εἰρήνης καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόν| ²² [των αὐτῇ πά]ντων καθάπερ ἐγ δίκη(ς), | ²³ [ἔτι] δ̣ὲ̣ καὶ ἐκ τῆς ὑπαρχούσης τῇ Ἰρήνῃ | ²⁴ δούλης Ἐ̣ρ̣ω̣τ̣ί̣ο̣υ̣, καθʼ ἧσπερ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἀναδέδωκεν | ²⁵ α̣ὐ̣τῶι Δ[ιο]νυσίωι ἐν ὑπαλλάγματι ἣν̣ ἔχ̣ει | ²⁶ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ν̣ε̣ι̣α̣ς̣ ἀπογραφὴν καὶ μέ|²⁷χ̣ρ̣ι̣ τοῦ δ̣ι̣[ευλυ]τῆσαι παρέξεσθαι αὐτὴν | ²⁸ [ἀνεξαλλο]τρίωτον καὶ ἀκαταχρημάτιστ(ον). (‘Dionysios shall have the right of execution from Eirene herself and all her holdings as if resulting from a court action, and beyond this against Eirene’s slave Erotion, in whose regard Eirene surrendered to Dionysios himself as a mortgage the declaration of [birth?] she possesses’).

The documentation from the Chora exhibits two formulations. [Type1] is recorded in the source material from the Arsinoite, dates to the late first and second centuries CE, and reads δεδωκέναι δὲ ἐν ὑπαλλάγματι καὶ διεγγύματι (‘X has given in substitution and pledge’): the object given in security is in the accusative, and the debt in the genitive, following ἐν ὑπαλλάγματι καὶ διεγγύματι. [Type2] is Hermopolite and dates to the late second through early fourth centuries CE, with the construction ὑπαλλάσσω πρός with ἀσφάλεια, ἔκτισις or ἀπόδοσις in the accusative and the debt in the genitive. The clause commonly states the immediacy of the effect of the security (ἐντεῦθεν) and notes that it is created by means of this document. Cf., e.g., P.Lips. I 10 1.5.-2.11 ll. 11-13 (178 CE, Hermopolis) it runs πρὸ[ς] δὲ τὴν | [τοῦ προκ(ειμένου) κεφαλαίου ἀ]σ̣[φά]λ̣ει[α]ν ὑπαλλάσσω σοι κατὰ τόδε τ[ὸ χε]ιρόγραφον τὸ ὑπάρχον μ[οι] ἥμι|[συ μέρος τῶν ὑπογεγρ]αμμένων [κατοι]κικῶν [ἀ]ρουρῶν κτλ. (‘And as a security for the aforementioned principal I assign to your benefit as hypallagma, by virtue of this cheirographon, the half-share belonging to me of the catoecic arouras reported below . . . .’). The clause is absent from Oxyrhynchite documents, leading us to speculate that it was functionally identical to the menein clause, which appears only in documents from that nome.

In one document, P.Vars. 10.2.28-31 (155 CE, Ptolemais Drymou), the debtor is allowed to record the hypallagma with the bibliotheke enkteseon: ὑπαλλά[ξαι διὰ] τῆς | ²⁹ τῶν ἐνκτήσεων [β]ι̣β̣λιο|³⁰θ̣ή̣κ̣η̣ς κλήρου κατοι[κι]|³¹[κ]οῦ ἀρουρῶν δύο κτλ. (…‘to assign as hypallagma through the bibliotheke enkteseon two arouras, etc.’). The registration of the hypallagma is also recorded in contemporary applications to the bibliophylakes. E.g., P.Kron. 18.11-20 = SB VIII 9880 (before 14.1.144 CE, Tebtynis). A typical feature of the hypallagma is the restriction imposed on the debtor’s right to dispose of the object for the duration of the debt (see ‘restraint clause’). This restriction is attested in 13 documents containing the hypallagma clause. In most documents, the creditor is also allowed to choose, in the event of default, to direct the praxis against the encumbered object or against the debtor’s estate in general. Unlike the hypotheke or the menein security, the hypallagma does not entail foreclosure.

Bibl.: Rabel (1909): 35-42; Manigk (1910a): 33-34; Schwarz (1911): 4-17; Wollentin (1961): 45-48; Pestman (1983): 281-302; Tenger (1993): 101-106; Rupprecht (1995a): 428-429; (1997b): 298-299; Alonso (2008): 24-27.

BGU IV 1147.23-28 (14/3^A, Alex) [in the praxis clause, slave]; 1149.24-28 (13^A, Alex) [1, slaves]; 1151.2.37-42 (13^A, Alex) [in the praxis clause, manufactory]; CPR XVIIa 5a.1-4 (316, Herm) [ἡλιαστήριον]; XVIIb 4.1-8, ll. 1-3 (184/5, Panop) (?); P.Charite 33.7-10 (331/2 or 346/7, Herm) [2, house]; 34.11-18 (318 or 348, Herm) [2]; P.Fam.Tebt. 11.1.3-13 (108, Teb)?; P.Flor. I 28.4-6 (177/8/9, Herm) [2, land]; P.Horak 80.8-9 (154, SokN) [ἐφʼ ὑπαλλαγῆς κλήρου ἀρουρῶν ὀκτώ]; P.Lips. I 10 1.5.-2.11, ll. 11-35 (178, Herm) [2, land]; P.Lond. II 311.9-13 (149, Herakleia) [1, land and slaves]; III 1166.17-19 (43, Herm) [general-hypallagma]; P.Ryl. II 177.7-10 (246, Herm) [2, house]; P.Stras. V 437.18-22 (121, Bac) [1, land]; VI 525.15-20 (98-117, Bac) (?); VIII 732.7-8 (228/9, Herm) [1, livestock?]; 746.4-8 (II, ArsN) [1, slaves]; 826a.5-7 (96-98, SokN) [1]; P.Tebt.Wall 1.17-21 (98-138, Teb)?; P.Vars. 10.1.15-17 (155, Ptolemais Drymou) [in the clause praxis; land]; 10.2.28-36 (155, Ptolemais Drymou): [ὑπαλλάξαι διὰ τῆς τῶν ἐνκτήσεων; land]; P.Vind.Worp 10.8-16 (143/4, SokN) [1]; SB XII 10786.15-19 (133, Teb) [2].

7. Menein Clause

Category: Security, Capacity

Link to Synallagma

In no more than five loan contracts, all from second-century CE Oxyrhynchos, the debtor grants (συγχωρεῖ) the creditor, within the framework of a clause dealing with the consequences of default, the κυρία and κράτησις over a piece of property indicated in the genitive. This entitlement arises as a substitute for the unrecovered principal and accrued interest (P.Oxy. III 506.21 (143 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἀντί τε τοῦ κεφαλαίου καὶ ὧν ἐὰν μὴ ἀπολάβῃ τόκων (… ‘in return for the principal and all interest that you have not obtained’) and is permanent (εἰ̣ς̣ τ̣ὸν ἀεὶ χ̣ρόνον). The μένειν clause is the first location in the document in which the object is reported. Accordingly, the scribe offers a detailed account of its qualities. Cf., e.g., P.Oxy.Hels. 31.10-14 (86 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀποδῷ καθὰ γέγραπται, συγχωρεῖ] | ¹¹ ἡ δεδαν̣εισμένη μένειν πε[ρὶ τὸν δεδανεικότα καὶ τοὺς παρʼ αὐτοῦ μεταληψο]|¹²μένους ἀντὶ τοῦ κεφαλαίου ἀ̣[πὸ τοῦ τῆς ἀποδόσεως χρόνου τὴν κράτησιν καὶ κυ]|¹³ρείαν εἰ̣ς̣ τ̣ὸν ἀεὶ χ̣ρόνον τοῦ ὑ̣[πάρχοντος αὐτῇ μέρους οἰκίας ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ μη]|¹⁴τροπόλ̣ει τοῦ Ὀξυρυγχείτου κα[ὶ χρηστηρίων καὶ εἰσόδων καὶ ἐξόδων πασῶν (‘And if she does not repay the loan as is written, the borrower agrees that the lender and his successors, in lieu of the principal, from the time when the payment falls due, shall retain in perpetuity power and control of the share falling to her in the house in said metropolis of the Oxyrhynchite nome and over its appurtenances and all entrances and exits’). Next, the scribe reports the consequences of the creditor’s position. In P.Oxy.Hels. 31.15-17 (86 CE, Oxyrhynchos), the formulation ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν is followed by six infinitives: καὶ] | ¹⁵ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν τ̣ὸν δεδανει[κότα τάξασθαι τὰ τέλη καὶ δεσπόζειν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ] | ¹⁶ περιεσ̣όμενα ἀπ[ο]φέρεσθα̣ι π̣[άντα καὶ ἑτέροις πωλεῖν καὶ χρᾶσθαι καὶ διοικεῖν] | ¹⁷ περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐὰν αἱρῆτ̣α̣ι̣ μη̣[δεμιᾶς τῇ δεδανεισμένῃ ἢ τοῖς παρʼ αὐτῆς καταλειπο]|¹⁸μένης ἐφόδου κατὰ μη̣δ̣ένα [τρόπον (‘It will be possible for the lender to pay the taxes, to own it and to receive all the income, to sell it to others and to have the use and disposition of it as he chooses, no right of legal process remaining to the borrower and to his deputies in any way’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 120). The first infinitive, in the aorist, relates to the payment of taxes pertaining to the conveyance: τάξασθαι τὰ τέλη (‘pay the taxes’). Among the following present infinitives, δεσπόζειν denotes title (cf. in particular P.Oslo II 40B.42 (150 CE, Oxyrhynchos): δεσπόζειν αὐ̣τ̣οῦ ὡς ἐὰν πράσεώς σοι γ̣ενομένης (‘to master it as if an act of sale was composed to your benefit’). The scribe then applies ἀποφέρεσθαι τὰ περιεσόμενα (‘to take the yields’) to record the right of usufruct, ἑτέροις πωλεῖν (‘to sell to others’) to an act of sale, and χρᾶσθαι καὶ διοικεῖν (‘use and administer’) to any other type of disposition. The μένειν clause is followed by the clause of no-suit, the surrender of the encumbered object, the restraint clause, and finally, also the ekloge, a clause allowing the creditor to choose, in case of default, between appropriating the encumbered object and applying the praxis.

Bibl.: Schwarz (1937): 246-248; Rupprecht (1995a): 434-435; (1997b): 299-300; Alonso (2016): 239-246.

P.Coll.Youtie I 50.4-9 (II^e, Ox); P.Oslo II 40a.8-13 (150, Ox); 40b.36-43 (150, Ox); P.Oxy. III 506.19-31 (143, Ox); XXXIV 2722.16-28 (154, Ox); P.Oxy.Hels. 31.10-17 (86, Ox); SB VI 8974.11-16 ? (I^bA, Bousiris).

8. Dotal Security (Greek)

Category: Security

Link to Synallagma

In the marriage document SB VI 8974.33-38 (I^b BCE, Bousiris), in connection with the ‘death clause’, the wife retains kyrieia over her dead husband’s estate until his heirs return her the dowry. This is not unique to this document (cf. the discussion in P.Oxy. III 496 on the death clause). The distinction in this case is that the estate becomes hers  if the heirs fail to return the dowry within the specified period of time: ἐὰν δὲ Νέ]αρχος | ¹² [τελευτήσῃ πρὶν ἀποδό]σθαι αὐτὴν τὴν φερνήν, μενέτω{ι} ἐπ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣  ̣ κ]α̣ὶ̣ κυ|¹³[ριεία τῆι δεῖνι τῶν ὑπαρχ]όντων πάντων ὧν ἐὰν ἀπολίπῃ [Νέαρχο]ς καθό|¹⁴[τι ἐὰν βούληται,] ἕως ἐὰν ἀποδῶσι αὐτῇ τὴν φερνὴ[ν οἱ κλη]ρονόμοι. | ¹⁵ [ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀποδῶ]σ̣ι̣ν̣ ἐν ταῖς ἑξήκοντα ἡμέραις, ἔστω{ι} τ[ὰ ὑπάρ]χοντα πάντα || ¹⁶ (frag. 3,2) [καὶ ἃ ἐάν ἀπολίπῃ Νέαρχ]ο̣ς ἀντὶ τῆς φερνῆς, ὧν καὶ κυριε̣[ύσει σὺν] | ¹⁷ [Ζωσίωι(?) ὅντινʼ ἐὰν τρόπον] αἱρῆ̣ται ἐν μηδενὶ εἰργομ[ένη, ἐφʼ ᾧ, οὗ μεμέρικεν] | ¹⁸ [Νεάρχωι – ca.13 – (‘If Nearchos dies before returning this very dowry, (the wife) shall keep [ – – ] and the title (kyrieia) to all possessions that Nearchos leaves behind, as she wishes, until his heirs return her the dowry. And if they fail to do so within sixty days, all his possessions and all that Nearchos leaves behind shall stand in lieu of the dowry, which she will control together with Zosios in any way whatsoever that she chooses, in no way being prevented, provided that what she has assigned to Nearchos….’).

Bibl.: Wolff (1939): 104-117; Häge (1968): 99-104; Yiftach (2003): 240-242.

9. Enechyron

Category: Security

Link to Synallagma

Only five documents, all Byzantine, record the posting of chattels as objects in an enechyron (pledge). The enechyron is introduced at the end of the document, in P.Mich. XI 607.28-31 (569 CE, Antinoopolis), as late as the stipulation clause: καὶ ἐφʼ | ²⁹ ἅ̣π̣αντα ἐρωτηθεὶς ὡμολόγησα ☧ δηλονότι ὑπ(ὲρ) τούτου | ³⁰ [παρ]εθέμην σοι λόγῳ ἐνεχύρου ὀθωνιν (l. ὀθόνιον) Ταρσικὸν Αἰγύπτιον | ³¹ κ̣αὶ καμισιν (l. καμίσιον) ὑποδειλικόν (‘Having been interrogated in relation to everything I have acknowledged, and it is understood that on this account I have turned over to you in pledge a garment made in Egypt after the Tarsian fashion and an undergarment-shirt (?)’.

Bibl.: Tenger (1993): 110; Rupprecht (1995a): 425-426; Russo (1999): 97-105.

P.Herm. 64.3-4 (VII/VIII, UP); P.Leipz. 10.7 (III, Mem); P.Mich. XI 607.29-31 (569, Antin); P.Oxy. LXIII 4395.28-39 (499, Ox); PSI XIV 1427.16-23 (565, Ox).

10. Foreclosure

Category: Security, Capacity

Link to Synallagma

The foreclosure clause is recorded only in the case of a hypotheke. It is attested in 17 documents, from the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. In Egypt, the evidence stems from all well-documented regions. It is also recorded in P.Yadin 11.6-7, 22-23 from 124 En-Gedi in the Judaean Desert. While we may assume that the procedure was essentially identical everywhere, there were marked regional peculiarities. In P.Flor. I 1.6-8 (153 CE, Hermopolis), the clause reports the following four elements: [1] the undertaking of necessary procedures for the conveyance of title—the payment of the conveyance tax (below: tax.) and the performance of the epikatabole (below: epikat.): ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀποδοῖ τῆς προθεσμίας ἐνστάσης εὐθέως ἐξέστω τῇ δεδανικυίῃ ἢ τοῖς παρʼ αὐτῆς μὴ προσδεομένοις ἀνανεώσεως ἢ διαστολικοῦ ἢ ἑτέρου τινὸς ἁπλῶς, ταξαμένοις τὰ εἰς τὸ ἐνκύκλιο̣ν καθήκοντα τέλη ἐπικαταβολὴν ποιήσα[σθ]αι | ⁷ τοῦ ὑποτεθειμένου ὡς πρόκειται βείκου ἑνὸς τετάρτου (‘If she (viz., the debtor) does not repay the debt immediately, when it is due, to the lender or to those acting on her behalf, they will not be in need of an act of renewal, writ, or anything else whatsoever, but having paid the charges needed for the conveyance tax, they will undertake the distraint of the mortgage as stated above, amounting to one and a quarter bikos’); [2] the act of acquisition of the mortgaged asset: κτᾶσθαι αὐτὴν καὶ τοὺς παρʼ αὐτῆς τοῦτο‹ν› κυρίως ἀντὶ τῶν [ὀ]φει[λομ]έ[ν]ων καὶ ἐμβαδεύειν εἰς αὐτόν (‘The lender and those acting on her behalf shall possess the mortgage with full title in lieu of the debt and will enter upon it’); unique to the acquisition of a mortgaged asset is the verb ἐμβαδεύειν (‘enter upon’); [3] an account of the consequences of acquiring title, viz., free disposition of the asset: εἰσοικίζειν καὶ ἐνοικολογεῖν καὶ διαμισθοῦν καὶ ἀποφέρεσθαι τὰ ἐξ αὐτοῦ περιεσόμενα πάντα εἰς τὸ ἴδιον ἔτι δὲ καὶ χρᾶσθαι καὶ οἰκονομεῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ καθʼ ὃν | ⁸ ἐὰν αἱρῶνται τρόπον ἐπὶ τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον (‘…establish oneself in the asset, receive rents, let out, collect all its accruing yields for their own use and perform all acts of disposal and administration in its regard in whatever form they wish in perpetuity’); [4] the end of any claim by the debtor to the asset: μηδενὸς τῇ δεδανισμένῃ μηδʼ ἄλλῳ ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς ἐξ ὑστέρου ἁπλῶς πε[ρ]ὶ τούτου καταλειπομένου λόγου ἢ παρευρέσεως (‘there remaining neither for the debtor, nor for anyone else on her behalf in the future any ground or pretext’). Among these elements, [1] and [2] are unique to the acquisition of a mortgaged asset, while [3] and [4] are common in any type of acquisition, marking out the capacities of the new owner. Such an extensive account is typical of loans with hypotheke from the Hermopolite nome of the second century CE (P.Flor. I 1.6-8 (153 CE, Hermopolis); 81.10-14 (103 CE, Hermopolis); P.Stras. I 52.6-9 (151 CE, Hermopolis), as well as in SB I 4370.32-36 (229 CE, Herakleopolites), the only document that has come down to us from the Herakleopolite nome. Elsewhere, scribes address only some of these elements. In the Arsinoites, of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods alike, primarily the acquisition procedure is encountered: an account of the epikatabole, or (in the case of kleroi katoikikoi) the metepigraphe, as well as the payment of the conveyance tax, e.g., P.Bas. 7.17-19 (138 CE, Arsinoites): ἐὰν δ]έ μὴ ἀποδῶ̣ι ἡ ὁμολογοῦσα Τ̣α̣[π]ιᾶμις [ἐ]ν τῇ ὁρισ|¹⁸[θείσῃ προθεσμίᾳ, ἐξεῖναι τῷ Πακύσι ἢ τοῖς παρʼ αὐτοῦ χω]ρὶς διαστολῆς καὶ ἐ̣πα̣νγ̣ε̣λ̣είας (l. ἐπαγγελίας) τὴν τῆς ὑποθήκης | ¹⁹ [ἐπικαταβολὴν ποιήσασθαι ταξαμένοις τὰ τέλη ἀκολούθως τ]οῖ[ς] ν̣όμοις τῶν ὑποθηκῶν (‘If Tapiamis, the acknowledging party, does not pay back the debt in due time, let Pakysis and those acting on his behalf, with neither writ nor notice, perform the epikatabole after paying the charges in pursuance of the laws of mortgage’.) In the Oxyrhynchites, the acquisition of title [2] and its consequences [3] are stipulated. Cf., e.g., P.Oxy. XVII 2134.21-22 (170 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἐὰν δὲ μὴ [ἀπο]δῶ καθʼ ἃ γέ[γρ]απται, κυριεύσεις ἀντὶ τούτων τῶν προκειμένων ἀρουρῶν καὶ ἐξέσται σοι | ²² χ[ρ]ᾶσθαι καὶ οἰκονομεῖν περὶ αὐτῶν καθʼ ὃν ἐὰν αἱρῇ τρόπον (‘And if I do not return the loan as stipulated you shall become the owner, in lieu of this debt, of the aforementioned arourae and it will become permissible for you to undertake any act of disposal or administration in their regard as you see fit’). P.Mert. III 109.3-11 (II CE, Oxyrhynchites) is the only Oxyrhynchite document that also records the embadeuein.

Bibl.: e.g., Weiss (1909): 20-21; Düwel (1969): 90-97. Rupprecht (1997b): 292-300.

apopher.: ἀποφέρεσθαι τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν γενήματα καὶ περιεσόμενα πάντα εἰς τὸ ἴδιον; choris: χωρὶς διαστολῆς καὶ ἐ̣πα̣νγελείας ; chr.: χρᾶσθαι ; desp.: δεσποτείαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τὸν διηνεκῆ χρόνον ; diam.: διαμισθοῦν; dioik.: διοικεῖν; embad.: ἐμβαδεύειν εἰς αὐτάς; enoik.: ἐνοικεῖν ; epikatab.: ἐπικαταβολὴν ποιήσασθαι; epikrat.: ἐπικρατεῖν; epit.: ἐπιτελεῖν περὶ αὐτῆς ὡς ἐὰν αἱρῆται; karp.: καρπίζεσθαι; kta.: κτᾶσθαι κυρίως ἀντὶ τῶν ὀφειλομένων; kyr.: κυριεύειν ἀντὶ τούτων τῶν προκειμένων ἀρουρῶν; nom.: ἐπιτελεῖν τὰ κατὰ τῆς ὑποθήκης νόμιμα; oikonom.: οἰκονομεῖν περὶ αὐτῶν καθʼ ὃν ἐὰν αἱρῇ τρόπον; prosd.: μὴ προσδεομένοις ἀνανεώσεως ἢ διαστολικοῦ ἢ ἑτέρου τινὸς ἁπλῶς; tax.: ταξαμένοις τὰ τέλη

BGU III 741.27-31 (143, Alex) [nom.]; VII 1651.4-13 (II, Phil) [epikatab.; nom.]; P.Bas. 7.17-19 (117-138, ArsN) [choris.; epikatab.; tax.; ἀκολούθως τοῖς νόμοις τῶν ὑποθηκῶν]; P.Flor. I 1.6-8 (153, Herm) [prosd.; tax.; epikatab., kta., embad., enoik., ἐνοικολογεῖν, diam., apopher., chr., oikonom.]; 81.10-14 (103, Herm) [prosd.; tax.; epikatab.; kta., embad., karp., diam., apopher., chr., oikonom.]; P.Genov. II 62.19-28 (98, Ox) [ἀνοῖξαι τὸν οἶκον, πωλεῖν τὸ νίτρον, μεταλαβεῖσθαι τὸ προκείμενον κεφάλαιον]; P.Horak 23.9 (148/9, ArsN) [epikatab. (verb)]; P.Mert. III 109.3-11 (II, OxN) [emb., krat., apopher.]; P.Michael. 9.12-20 (c. 92, OxN); P.Oxy. II 270.28-38 (94, Ox) [kyr.: ὡς ἂν πράσεως αὐτῷ γενομένης; apopher., pol., chr.]; XVII 2134.21-22 (170, Ox) [kyr., chr., oikonom.]; P.Panop. 21.22-26 (315, Panop) [kyr., epikrat., desp.]; P.Stras. I 52.6-9 (151, Herm) [prosd.; μετεπιγραφῆν̣α̣ι̣ δ̣ι̣ὰ̣ τῶν καταλοχισμῶν, kta., embad., καρποῦσθαι, diam., apopher., chr., oikonom.]; P.Tebt. III.1 817.19-20 (182^A, Krok) [epikat. ἀκολούθως τῶι διαγράμματι]; III.2 970.16-19 (II^A, Krok); P.Yadin 11.7-8 (scr.int.), 22-24 (scr.ext.) (124, En Gedi) [kta., chr., pol., dioik.; choris]; SB I 4370.32-36 (229, HerakN) [emb., krat., kyr., despoz., epitel. prosd.: παρουσία]; XIV 11705.9-11 (213, ArsN) [emb., dioik., epit.]; XVIII 13167.15-23 (II^m, UP).

11. Enechyrasia

Category: Security, Penalty

Link to Synallagma

In loans given in the context of an association, the creditor may seize the debtor in the case of non-payment: ‘If I do not repay you, you may seize me with impunity in any manner you choose’. Cf., e.g., SB XXIV 16296.9-13, ll. 12-13 (182/158 BCE, Unknown Provenance): Ἐὰν δὲ μὴ̣ [ἀπο]δῶ, ἐξ̣έ̣σ̣ται σ̣οι ἐνεχ[υράζειν με] | παντ̣ὶ̣ τ̣ρόπ‹ωι› ὧι ἂν{ν} αἱρεῖ, ὄντι ἀ̣νυπευθ̣ύ̣ν̣(ωι).

Bibl. Martinez/Williams (1997): 259-263.

SB XXIV 16296.1-2 ll. 1-2; 16296.3-8 ll. 5-7; 16296.9-13 ll. 12-13 (182^A/158^A, UP).

12. Redemption of Pledge

Category: Security

Link to Synallagma

In a loan contract that records a chresis, the debtor expects to redeem an object by repaying the loan. The creation of the security is recorded nowhere in the document, so that its present or past creation is only implied. SPP XXII 41.8-21 (208 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis): ὁμολογοῦσιν Σεμπρώ̣[ν]ιος | ⁹ Παν̣[ᾶ]τ̣ο̣ς̣ [το]ῦ Σεμπρωνίου ἱερέως | ¹⁰ θε[ῶν] κ̣ώμης Σοκνοπαίο[υ] Νήσου ὡ̣ς ἐτῶ̣ν̣ | ¹¹ τριάκοντα οὐλὴ μετώπῳ μέσῳ καὶ ὁ τού|¹²του ἀδελφὸς Στοτοῆτ̣ις̣ ὡς ἐτῶν εἴκοσι πέν|¹³τε [οὐ]λὴ τρα[χή]λῳ ἐξ ἀρ[ισ]τερῶν [Πακῦσ]ι Πακύ|¹⁴σεω[ς] συνιε[ρεῖ τῶ]ν̣ αὐτῶν θεῶν ἔχι[ν] παρʼ αὐτοῦ | ¹⁵ τοὺς ὁμο[λογοῦντ]ας χρῆσ[ι]ν ἀργυρ[ίο]υ κεφα|¹⁶λαίο[υ δραχμὰς] ἑκατὸν ε[ἴ]κοσι ἐφʼ ᾧ αὐτοὺς | ¹⁷ λαμ[β]άνον[τας π]αρὰ τῶν περὶ τὸν [Σε]μπρώ|¹⁸νιον τὰς ἀρ(γυρίου) [δραχμ]ὰς ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι [λυ]τρῶσαι | ¹⁹ [τὸ ὑ]π[άρ]χον [ἡ]μῖν ἐν τ[ῇ] προγεγραμ‹μ›ένῃ κώ|²⁰μῃ [Σοκν]οπαί[ου Ν]ήσῳ ἥ[μ]ισυ μέρ[ος] οἰκίας | ²¹ π[ατρ]ικῆς (‘Sempronios son of Panas, grandson of Sempronios, a priest of the gods of the village of Soknopaiou Nesos, age approximately thirty, scar in the middle of his forehead, and his brother Stotoetis, aged approximately 25, with a scar on the left part of his neck, acknowledge to Pakysis son of Pakysis, a fellow priest of the same gods, that they, the acknowledging parties, have received from him a loan (chresis) of one hundred twenty silver drachmas, on the condition that they, having received from the representatives of Sempronios the hundred twenty drachmas, shall redeem the half a share of paternal house that belongs to us (sic!) in the aforesaid village of Soknopaiou Nesos’). Cf. also BGU IV 1156v.46-48 (14/3 BCE, Alexandria).

13. Failure to Return Pledge

Category: Security, Termination

Link to Synallagma

The creditor’s right to dispose of the debtor’s assets is limited to the period of the contract, after which he must return them or face sanctions. SB XVIII 13154.7-14 (II/I BCE, Unknown Provenance): ἀλλ̣ʼ ἐ̣ὰν ὁ Δινύ(σιος) κομισάμενος τὰ ἑαυ(τοῦ) μὴ ἐκχωρήσῃ | ⁸ μετὰ τῶν παρʼ αὐ(τοῦ) ἐκ τῆς οἰ̣κ̣ίας ἐν ἄλ[λαις ἡμέρ(αις)] λ ἀφʼ ο̣ὗ̣ ἐὰν κομίσηται | ⁹ παραδοὺς τῆι Ὀλυ(μπιάδι) ἢ τοῖς παρʼ αὐ(τῆς) τοὺς τ[ό]πους καθαροὺς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀκαθαρρσίας (l. ἀκαθαρσίας) | ¹⁰ [καὶ] ἃς παρείλη(φεν) ἐφεστώ(σας) θύ(ρας) ε κλεῖ(δας) ε ἀποτεισάτω Ὀλυ(μπιάδι) τοῦ μὲν μὴ ἐκχω(ρῆσαι) ἐπίτι(μον) | ¹¹ [χα(λκοῦ)] (ταλάντων(?)) κ ἑκάστης δὲ θ̣ύ(ρας) ἧς ἐὰν̣ μὴ παραδῷ τι(μὴν) χα(λκοῦ) (δραχμῶν) Γ τῆς δὲ παροδίου θύ(ρας) (ταλάντων) β | ¹² [- ca.12 – τοῦ μ]ὴ καθαί(ρειν) μισθὸν χα(λκοῦ) (δραχμῶν) Β καὶ μηθὲν ἧσσον ἐξοικισθήτω | ¹³ [- ca.16 -]λυ( ) δὲ ἔστιν τὰ ζ (τάλαντα) λοιπὰ τῶν ι (ταλάντων) τοῦ χα(λκοῦ) ὧν ἐδά(νεισε) | ¹⁴ [Διονύ(σιος) Ὀλυ(μπιάδι) ἀκολούθως τ]ῇ συγγρα(φῇ) τὴν ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]α̣ν διο̣υ̣σ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ (‘But if Dionysios, having received his own, does not vacate, together with his representatives, the house within another 30 days from the day in which he has recovered the debt, let him return the house (topoi) to Olympias or to her representatives, clear of all dirt and the five doors and five keys intact, and let him pay as a penalty twenty talents (?) of bronze for failing to vacate, and the amount of 3,000 bronze drachms for each door that he has not returned, and 2 talents for the door facing the street – – and a misthos of 2,000 bronze drachms for not cleaning and let him nonetheless be evicted from the house’). In BGU IV 1115.51-53 (13 BCE, Alexandria), the creditor, who resides on the debtor’s premises during the period of the debt, must surrender it to him unimpaired after its settlement. Otherwise, he becomes agogimos and is subject to the prescribed prostimon.

14. Apostasion and Proprasis

Category: Security

Link to Synallagma

In eiromena drafted at the grapheion of the village of Tebtynis, recording the contents of an Egyptian alimentary contract, the husband’s apostasion (‘contract of surrender’) (Demotic: sẖꜣ n wꜣy) and proprasis (‘preliminary sale’) (Demotic: sẖꜣ n ḏbꜣ ḥḏ) of specified assets, along with his present and future acquisitions, are documented. Introduced by the preposition κατά, the assets are recorded in the genitive case. Within the account, the scribe first specifies currently available concrete assets. Reported are the nature of the object (e.g., house, yard), its village of location, former owners, and how the husband acquired title to the asset—all elements that are also common in contemporary acts of sale. Unlike in sales, however, is the absence of a description of the abutters. The scribe then takes into consideration future acquisitions. The vocabulary, aiming at drawing up an exhaustive list of all possible types of assets that the husband may acquire (see in particular the verb ἐπικτάομαι), will later become typical of the hypotheca generalis, hypallagma, and praxis clauses. In the early first century, when this clause is attested, the extensive enumeration is unprecedented, at least in the Greek evidence. Cf., e.g., P.Mich. II 121^r col. III 7 ll. 1-3 (42 CE, Tebtynis?): συνγρ(αφῆς) τροφίτιδο(ς) (Demotic: sẖꜣ n sꜥnḫ) ἀργ(υρίου) χρυσ(ῶν) κα καὶ τὴν ἀποστασίο(υ) καὶ πρόπρασιν κατὰ τῆς ὑπαρχο(ύσης) ὅλης τῆς οἰκίας καὶ αὐλῆ(ς) καὶ τόπ(ου) ἐν Τεβτ(ῦνι) ἐν μι(ᾷ) σφραγῖδ(ι) (πρότερον) Ὀρσενο(ύφιος) το(ῦ) Ὡρουάγχι(ος) καὶ κατὰ τῶ(ν) ἐπιβαλ(λόντων) πατρικ(ῶν) μερῶν ἑτέρας οἰκ(ίας) καὶ αὐλῆς ὁμοίως ἐν | ² Τεβτῦνι καὶ καθʼ ὧν ἐὰν ἀπὸ το(ῦ) νῦν ἐπικτή(σωμαι) ὑπαρχ(όντων) πάντ(ων) κλήρ(ων) καὶ ἀμπε(λώνων) καὶ παραδ(είσων) καὶ οἰκοπ(έδων) καὶ κτην(ῶν) παντοίω(ν) καὶ δο(υλικῶν) σωμάτ(ων) καὶ ἐπιπλό(ων) καὶ ἐνδομεν(ίας) καὶ ἐνοφιλο(μένων) (l. ἐνοφειλο(μένων)) πάντων καθʼ ὃν δήπο(τε οὖν) τρόπ(ον) ἢ καὶ ἐλευσομέν(ων) εἴς μαι (l. με) ἀφʼ οὗ | ³ δήποτε οὖν τρόπ(ου) (‘Alimentary contract for silver of the value of 21 pieces of gold and the contract of surrender and preliminary sale, concerning the whole house, which belongs to me, and the courtyard and the plot of ground in Tebtynis in one parcel formerly belonging to Orsenouphis, son of Horouanchis, and concerning the shares that come to me from my father of another house and courtyard likewise in Tebtynis, and concerning whatever property I may acquire from the present time onward, including allotments and vineyards and groves and building sites and cattle of all sorts and slaves and movables and household furnishings and all that is owed to me in any way whatsoever, or may come to me from any source whatsoever’). (transl.: editio princeps, p. 53). The same contents are conveyed in the context of homologia in P.Mich. V 347.12-14 (21 CE, Tebtynis), as well as in the heavily damaged Oxyrhynchite P.Ifao I 13.13-15 (23 BCE, Oxyrhynchos).

Bibl.: Arangio-Ruiz (1930): 50-56; Lüddeckens (1960): 321-323; Pestman (1961): 115-117, 133-136; Lippert (2008): 106-108.

P.Dime III 8GH.10-14 (23, SokN); 14GH.8-11 (29, SokN); 16GH.13-16 (34?, SokN); 21GH.6-9 (45, SokN); 27GH.13-21 (54, Nilipolis/SokN); P.IFAO I 13.13-15 (23^A, Ox); P.Mich. II 121^r.3.1.1-2 (42, Teb); 121^r.3.7.1-3 (42, Teb?); 121^r.3.12.1-2 (42, Teb?); 121^r.4.4.1 (42, Teb); V 347.12-14 (21, Teb).

15. Hypotheca Generalis

Category: Security

Link to Synallagma

Quite frequently, the creditor of a debt in default is allowed to collect it from the debtor’s entire property. This right is most commonly introduced in the praxis clause. A different path to the same goal passes through the hypotheca generalis. Here (1) the right is recorded independently, in a different clause; (2) the clause records the creation of the encumbrance, using the same terminology as in a regular hypotheke; (3) the object of the encumbrance is the entire property of the declaring party, present and future alike. Before the Byzantine period, the closest parallel to such a construct is in the apostasion and proprasis clause, which records, in a grammatically independent clause, the ‘sale’ of the husband’s present and future assets to his wife. The terminology, however, is that of sale, not of mortgage, and the clause is recorded only in the Arsinoite sources dating to the first century CE. Later texts composed outside Egypt anticipate some aspects of the future hypotheca generalis.

A ‘primitive’ form of the hypotheca generalis is attested in loan documents from Dura Europos: P.Dura 22.6-7 (133/4 CE, Dura Europos): ἐπὶ] | ὑ̣π̣[ο]θήκηι τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτῶι πᾶσιν, as well as in the Judean marriage document P.Yadin 18.16-18, 51-54 (128 CE, Ma‘oza), in which the husband’s present and future assets are posted as security for the provision of the dowry: ἐπὶ τῆς | ⁵² τοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰούδα Κίμβ[ε]ρ̣ο[ς] π̣ίστε̣ως καὶ κ̣ινδύνου καὶ πάντων ὑπαρχόν|⁵³των ὧν τε ἔχει ἐν τῇ̣ α̣ὐ̣τ̣ῇ̣ [πα]τ̣ρ̣ί̣δ̣ι αὐ̣τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ καὶ ὧδε καὶ ὧν ἐπικτήσηται | ⁵⁴ πάντῃ πά̣[ν]τ̣ων κυρίω[ς (‘Upon the said Judah Cimber’s good faith and peril and [the security of] all his possessions, both those which he now possesses in his said home village and here and all those which he may in addition validly acquire everywhere.’) (transl.: P.Yadin, p. 80). The earliest precisely datable document from Egypt is CPR VII 40 (492 CE, Hermopolites). After this date, the hypotheca generalis is recorded in 88 documents in the categories studied here, as well as repeatedly in dialyseis and contracts of surety (e.g., P.Oxy. XLIV 3204.24-26 (588 CE, Oxyrhynchos); P.Cair.Masp. II 67122.1-4 (VI^m CE, Aphrodite), both surety contracts). The evidence stems from all well-documented nomes—Hermopolites (34), Antaiopolites (13), Arsinoites (13), and Oxyrhynchites (13)— as well as in papyri from Nessana and from Constantinople.

In the Byzantine evidence, we discern three main types. [Type1] (19 texts) is closest in phrasing to the coeval clause that records the creation of an encumbrance (hypotheke) of a concrete item. In these texts, the vendor/debtor is recorded as the subject, the verb ὑποτίθημι appears as the predicate, and the object of the mortgage, viz., the present and future possessions of the declaring party, is couched in the accusative. The purchaser/creditor stands, as beneficiary, in the dative case. Eἰς + acc. designates the purpose. Common adverbial additions include the expressions ἰδικῶς καὶ γενικῶς ἐνεχύρου λόγῳ καὶ ὑποθήκης δικαίῳ and the phrase καθάπερ ἐκ δίκης (cf., Litinas – Triantafyllou (2019) 104). [Type1] is employed outside Egypt (Constantinople, Nessana) and, in Egypt, primarily in the Arsinoite and Oxyrhynchite nomes; it is especially common in documents that record land conveyance by sale or in the context of a secured loan. Cf., e.g., P.Dubl. 32.13-14 (512 CE, Arsinoiton Polis): καὶ | ¹⁴ ὑπέθετο ὁ πεπρακὼς Εὐλόγιος τῷ πριαμένῳ Ποῦσι εἰς τὴν βεβαίωσιν καὶ καθαρο̣ποίησιν τῆσδε τῆς πράσεως πάντα αὐτοῦ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ ὑπάρξοντα ἰδικῶς καὶ γενικῶς ἐνεχύρου λόγῳ καὶ ὑποθήκης δικαίῳ, καθάπερ ἐκ δίκης (‘And the vendor Eulogios has pledged to the purchaser Pousis, for the confirmation and assured freedom from encumbrances of this sale, all his possessions, present and future, severally and generally, by way of guarantee and with the force of a mortgage as though by decree of court’) (transl. P.Dubl., p. 171).

[Type2], with a total of 38 texts, is best attested in the Hermopolite and Antaiopolite evidence and is employed primarily in loans and wine sales. In a genitive-absolute construction, the present and future possessions of the declaring party stand as the subject and are followed, predicatively, by ὑποκειμένων with the ‘silent’ party in the dative. All other elements are those used in Type1. Cf., e.g., P.Michael. 40.54-58 (544 or 559 CE, Aphrodite): καὶ εἰς πάντα τὰ ἐγγεγραμμένα καὶ εἰς τὴν βεβαίωσιν καὶ καθαροποίησι̣ν̣ | ⁵⁵ ταύτης τῆς πράσεως ὑποκειμένων σοι πάντων μου τῶν ὑπαρχόντων | ⁵⁶ καὶ ὑπαρξόντων πραγμάτων κινητῶν τε καὶ ἀκινήτων καὶ αὐτο|⁵⁷κινήτων γενικῶς καὶ ἰδικῶς ἐν παντὶ εἴδει καὶ γένει ἐνεχύρου λόγῳ |⁵⁸ καὶ ὑποθήκης δικαίῳ καθάπερ ἐκ δίκης (‘And for all that is herein written and for the guarantee of confirmation of this sale and for its freedom from encumbrances all my possessions present and future, movable, immovable and livestock, generally and severally, in every class and kind are submitted to you as a pledge and with the force of a mortgage as though by decree of court’) (transl., editio princeps, p. 79).

[Type3] In nine documents—six from the Hermopolite nome and two from Aphrodites Kome—all recording loans or sales of fungibles, the clause is identical to Type2 except that instead of ὑπάρχοντα, the scribe uses ὑπόστασις as the subject. Cf., e.g., SB XVI 13037.19-20 (522/3 CE, Hermopolites): ὑποκειμένων (l. ὑποκειμένης) σοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ χρέο{υ}ς πάσης μου τῆς ὑποστάσεως | ²⁰ καθάπερ ἐκ δίκης (…. ‘encumbering all my property for this debt as if on the strength of a legal decision’).

The vocabulary of the clause in other contexts: In the Byzantine period, the vocabulary of the hypotheca generalis is also used in the repayment clause, particularly when the debtor must repay the debt. This is evidenced especially in the Oxyrhynchite formulation κινδύνῳ τῶν ἐμοὶ ὑπαρχόντων ὑποκειμένων εἰς τοῦτο (e.g., P.Coles 29.10-11: VI/VII CE, Oxyrhynchos?). The vocabulary is also integrated, in the same nome, into the praxis clause; see, e.g., P.Oxy. VI 914.14-18 (486 CE, Oxyrhynchos): τῆς εἰσπράξεως | ¹⁵ [σοι γι]γνομένης π[α]ρά τε ἐμοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρ|¹⁶[χόντ]ων μοι πάντων ὑποκειμένων τῇ | ¹⁷ [ἐκτί]σει τοῦδε τοῦ χρέους ἐνεχύρου λόγῳ | ¹⁸ [καὶ ὑπο]θήκης δικαίῳ (‘You shall have the right of execution upon me and all my property, which is mortgaged for the repayment of this debt, as security and lawful pledge’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 268). Emperor Justinian, addressing this particular usage, recognized it as a valid hypotheke in contrast to earlier ordinances. Compare also C. 8.16 (17).9 (528 CE).

Bibl.: Schwarz (1911): 50; Taubenschlag (1955): 280-281; Wolff (1956a): 25 n. 62; Kaser (1975): 316-317; Jördens (1990): 162-163, 329 [fungible sales]; Papadatou (2008): 213; van Hoof (2017): 486-487; Rodríguez Martín (2017) 88-92; 101-107; Yiftach (2021a): 172-175.

In [–]: the purpose of the execution.

BGU XII 2152.12-14 (512?, Herm) [2; misthosis]; 2172.20-21 (489 ?, Herm) [2; misthosis]; 2185.15-16 (512?, Herm) [2]; 2197.18-20 (537, Herm) [2; grammateion]; 2198.22-25 (545/560, Herm) [2]; 2201.9-10 (565, Herm) [2; chreos]; 2206.26-29 (591-602, Herm) [2; chreos]; XVII 2687.1 (V^b, Herm) [2]; 2698.28-32 (VII, Herm) [1]; XIX 2836.10-12 (V?, Herm) [2; chreos]; 2837.21-23 (582, Herm) [2]; CPR I 30.b (VI/VII, Herak) [1; ἐπὶ βεβαιώσει]; V 14.17-19 (475, HerakN) [2]; VII 40.20-22 (492, HermN) [2; grammation?]; 45.10-12 (507?, HermN) [3]; IX 26.24-26 (545/6, Herm) [2; misthosis]; X 23.9-11 (520/1?, ArsPol) [2]; XIX 10.19-21 (522, HermN) [3; chreos]; 31.12-14 (ll. 10-20) (V^s, HermN) [2; grammation]; 44.5-7 (VI/VII, Alex?) [1; ἐπὶ τὸ καθαροποιεῖν]; P.Amh. II 151.16-18 (610-619/629-641, Herm) [2]; P.Amst. I 44.1 (VI^b, Herm); P.Ant. I 42.27-28 (557, Lenaiou, ArsN) [2; chreos]; P.Athen.Xyla 6.12-15 (VI, HermN) [3; chreos]; 12.2-4 (VI, HermN) [2]; P.Bodl. I 60.17-20 (553, Herm) [2; misthosis and ektisis]; 82.13-14 (533, Herm) [3]; P.Cair.Masp. I 67097^r.59-60 (571/2?, Aphr) [3]; 67116.6-7 (548, Aphr) [3; ektisis and apodosis]; 67122.2-4 (525-575, Aphr) [2]; II 67125.13-15 (525, Aphr) [3]; 67126.23-29 (541, Constantinople) [1; asphales]; 67127.16-19 (544, Aphr) [2]; 67129.26-27 (549, Aphr) [3; ἄχρι πληρώσεως]; 67158.31 (568, Antin) [1]; 67159.44-48 (568, Antin) [2]; 67162.28-29 (568, Antin) [2]; 67169.43-44 (569, Antin) [1; εἰς βεβαίωσιν καὶ καθαροποίησιν]; III 67305.25 (568, Antin) [1]; 67310.12-13 (566-573, Antin) [1]; 67314.46-49 (569/70, Antin) [1; πρὸς πίστιν καὶ ἀσφάλειαν]; P.Col. VIII 244.4-7 (VI, ArsPol) [1; εἰς ἅπαντα τὰ προγεγραμμένα]; P.Dubl. 32.13-14 (512, ArsPol) [1; εἰς βεβαίωσιν καὶ καθαροποίησιν]; 33.16-17 (513, ArsPol) [1; εἰς βεβαίωσιν καὶ καθαροποίησιν]; P.Dura 17d.42 (c. 180, Dura Europos); 20.6-7 (121, Paliga); 22.3-4 (133/4, Dura Europos); P.Flor. III 280.21-23 (514, Aphr) [3]; 323.17-19 (525, Herm) [2]; 384.100-104 (489, Herm) [2]; P.Gen. IV 190.18-20 (522/3?, HermN) [2; chreos]; P.Gen. Gr. 82.21-22 (VI, ArsN) [1]; P.Heid. V 356.2-5 (V/VI, HermN) [2; chreos]; 357.18-21 (507, HermN) [3; chreos]; 361.31-32 (613, ArsPol) [4]; P.Herm. 32.27-30 (VI, UP) [2]; 65.13-16 (553/4, HermN) [1; ὑπὲρ πίστεως καὶ ἀσφαλείας]; P.Jena II 17.21-23 (515?, Herm) [2; chreos]; P.Köln III 156.13-14 (582-602, Antin?) [2]; XIV 589.4 (VI, Antin) [2]; P.Lond. III 1015.15-18 (VI, Herm) [1; bebaiosis]; V 1660.43-47 (c. 553 AntaioN) [2]; 1661.20-23 (553, Aphr) [1]; 1687.15-16 (523, Aphr) [3]; 1711.25-26 (566-573, AntinN) [3]; V 1716.9-12 (570, Antin) [3]; 1772.21-24 (VI, HermN) [2; chreos]; P.Mert. III 125.7-9 (VI, OxN) [1; dikaion]; P.Mich. XI 607.24-26 (569, Antin) [2]; XIII 662.57-61 (615, Aphr) [2]; 663.31-35 (VI, Aphr) [2]; 664.37-39 (584/5 or 600/1, Aphr) [2]; 671.14-17 (VI^m, Aphr) [3]; 672.7-9 (557?, Aphr) [2]; P.Michael. 34.11-13 (VI, UP) [1]; 40.54-58 (544 or 559, Aphr) [2; εἰς τὴν βεβαίωσιν καὶ καθαροποίησιν]; 52.g.33-36 (VI/VII, Aphr) [2]; 55.c.11-12 (582-602, Aphr) [1]; 56.4 (VI, Aphr)? [1]; P.Oxy. I 136.39-41 (583, Ox) [1; dikaion tou synallagmatos]; 138.33-37 (610/1, Ox) [1; dikaion tes homologias]; XVI 1890.16-17 (508, Ox) [1; dikaion tes misthoseos]; 1895.14-15 (554, Ox) [1; dikaion tes misthoseos]; XIX 2239.20-23 (598, OxN) [1; dikaion tou synallagmatos]; LI 3641.19-21 (544, Ox) [1; dikaion tou synallagmatos]; LVIII 3952.47-49 (610, Ox) [1; dikaion tou synallagmatos]; 3958.32-34 (614, Ox) [1; dikaion tou synallagmatos]; LXIII 4394.235-237 (494 Alex) [1]; LXXXIII 5370.5-6 (VI, Ox) [1; dikaion tes misthoseos]; 5380.b-c.2 (580, Ox) [1?]; LXXXIV 5473.b.2-4 (561, Ox) [1; dikaion tou synallagmatos]; 5474.46-48 (617/8, Ox) [1; dikaion tou synallagmatos]; P.Prag. I 41.7-8 (VI/VII, HerakN) [2]; 46.15-17 (522, Antin) [2]; P.Rain.Cent. 123.17-19 (478, Phebichis) [2]; P.Ross.Georg. III 32.12-14 (504, ArsPol) [2]; 37.8-11 (VI^m, Aphr); P.Select. 4.8-9 (VI/VII, UP) (1); P.Stras. V 493.7-9 (c. 525, HermN) [2]; VII 658.6? (VI, HermN); 696.14-15 (VI, Herm) [3]; VIII 799.4-5 (VI, Herm) [2]; P.Vat.Aphrod. 4.9-13 (VI^s, Aphr) [2; bebaiosis, katharopoiesis]; 5.12-14 (VI, Aphr) [2]; P.Vind.Sijp. 10.19-20 (V/VI, ArsN) [2]; P.Vindob. G 15300.17-18 (VI^l, Herm) [1]; 20714 (V^l/VI, Herak) [2]; P.Warr. 10.28-29 (591/2, Ox); P.Worp 30.4-6 (V/VI, Herm) [2]; 31.4-6 (c. 500, Herm) [2; chreos]; P.Yadin 18.16-18 (128, Maoza); PSI V 549.10-11 (41^A, Ox); 799.4-5 (VI^end, Herm) [1]; SB I 4489.18-19 (584, ArsN) [1]; 4504.24-25 (613, This) [3]; 4687.6 (VI, ArsN); 4756.1-3 (IV-VII, ArsN); V 7758.28-30 (497, MagdBou) [2]; VIII 9770.9-10 (511, ArsN) [2]; XIV 12050.28-29 (498, Herm) [2]; XVI 13037.19-20 (522/3, HermN) [3; chreos]; XVIII 13173.90-95 (629/644, Herm) [1; ἐπὶ τῇ βεβαιώσει τῆς παρούσης πράσεως]; 13298.13-14 (566-570, Antin)?; 13320.91-94 (613-641, Aphr) [2]; XVIII  13885.19-20 (547 or 562, ArsPol) [2]; XX 14240.12-13 (VI, Aphr) [3]; 15043.8-9 (VI/VII, Herm) [2; chreos]; XXX 17328.9-10 (546/561, Herak) [2]; SPP III 25.6 (VI/VII, HerakN); XX 139.17 (531, ArsPol) [2]; 145.7-8 (VI^s, ArsPol) [1; bebaiosis, katharopoiesis]; 261.11-12 (570, HermN) [2]; 227.6-7 (VII, HerakN) [ἀπολημπτική].