Chapter 5: Paramone
Contracts of labour presuppose the paramone, a prolonged stay of the employee on the employer’s premises. One way to achieve this would be to write the paramone and its enforcement into the contract explicitly. The duty of παραμένειν is indeed frequently recorded in various clauses that anticipate employment. However, clauses that introduce the paramone exclusively are uncommon and those penalizing its violation are even rarer. Indeed, for the most part, scribes prohibit acts that would bring the paramone to its end. Three main scenarios of this kind are encountered: (1) the employee leaves the estate before the end of the contract. Such an event is regulated in Clause 1 (anachoresis), Clause 6 (apostasis), Clause 8 (day and night absence), and Clause 13 (prolipein, apolipein), which prohibit departures in leases. (2) The employer removes the employee from the estate, as in Clause 3 (aporriptein) and Clause 11 (ekballein). (3) The paramone ends due to the intervention of a third party, as in Clause 4 (apospasis). Syntactically, the clauses are ‘autonomous’, i.e., their contents do not derive from the main verb (usually ὁμολογέω) that introduces the contract but are elicited by an impersonal construction. The clause that prohibits the dissolution of the paramone may be followed by a penalty clause. Such a clause, unlike other cases treated in this book, is not always preceded by a prohibition that triggers the sanction by cause and effect. This phenomenon is especially salient in the case of the ekballein clause, in which no document includes both the prohibition and the sanction clause; in the same vein, the clause prohibiting departure in leases (no. 13) is almost never followed by a corresponding penalty clause. The sanction against dissolving the paramone is frequently derived from the terms of the contract itself, which deny the party that breaches the contract their wage as well as different types of preinstallments. Pecuniary sanctions external to the terms of the contract are attested but are not the rule. Since most clauses are of later provenance, they do not exhibit the vocabulary common in other penalty clauses.
1. Anachoresis
Category: Paramone
The anachoresis clause is one of a relatively large variety of clauses that prohibit an employee from leaving the employer’s estate. It is recorded in 14 documents, all contracts of labour, most dating to the sixth and seventh centuries CE. The anachoresis clause seems functionally and structurally identical to the apostasis clause and appears to be popular around the same period. If conclusions can be drawn from the sparse material in hand, two key differences emerge. The first is regional; the anachoresis clause is common in the Arsinoite and Oxyrhynchite nomes while the apostasis is used in the Hermopolites and in the city of Antinoopolis. The second concerns the type of document: the former is attested exclusively in contracts of labour, while the latter is also common in leases. The anachoresis clause is introduced by a ‘prohibition formula’ (μὴ ἐξεῖναί μοι, μὴ δύνασθαί με), which is then followed by the aorist or the present infinitive of the verb ἀναχωρέω or one of its compounds—ὑπαναχωρέω and ἐπαναχωρέω—which introduces, in the genitive (with or without a preposition), the object of the desertion. This object may be either the employer or the work undertaken. Indication of the timeframe is optional, not indispensable. Cf., e.g., P.Heid. V 345.6-7 (VI, Oxyrhynchites): καὶ μὴ | 7 ἐξεῖναί μοι ἐντὸς τοῦ χρόνου ἀναχωρεῖν | ἀπὸ σοῦ (…‘And I shall not be allowed to abandon you during the timeframe of the contract’).
Bibl.: Berger (1911): 162; Adams (1964): 89, 101; Jördens (1990): 160-161.
BGU VII 1655.57-59 (169, Phil); CPR VIII 82.7-9 (699 or 709, ArsN); P.Cair.Zenon I 59133.14-15 (256A, Phil); P.Erl. 74.5-7? (VI, UP); P.Haun. III 56.15-18 (IV/V, UP); P.Heid. V 345.6-8 (VIe, OxN); P.Herm. 30.11-12 (552, OxN ?); P.Mil. I 48.14 (549, Ox); P.Oxy. I 140.24-25 (550, Ox); LXIII 4967.7-11 (VIl/VIIe, Ox); P.Rein. II 105.4-5 (432, Ox); P.Select. 4.5-6 (VI-VII, UP); SB I 4739.15-18 (VI-VII, ArsN); XVIII 13585.1-3 (450-549, Herm); 13960.15-18 (VI-VII, ArsN).
2. Consequences of the Anachoresis
Category: Paramone, Penalty
A clause dealing with the consequences of anachoresis is recorded in 21 documents, all but one dating to the sixth and seventh centuries. In 12 documents it follows the anachoresis clause; in 9, it appears independently. The clause is used only in the context of labour contracts. Where it follows the anachoresis clause, the protasis is succinct, recording the verb only: εἰ δὲ ἀναχωρήσω, or simply εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ποιήσω. Otherwise, the scribe records the circumstances, specifying the object abandoned and the duration of the desertion, in both cases using the formulations attested in the anachoresis clause itself. E.g., SB I 4490.24-26 (641 or 656 CE, Arsinoiton Polis): ἐὰν πρὸ | 25 τῆς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ συμπληρ[ώσεως] | 26 ζητήσω ἀναχωρῆσαι ἐκ τῆς παραμονῆς (‘If I seek to withdraw from the paramone before the year comes to an end…’). The consequence of this act is the payment of a fine in three cases and the withholding of the employee’s salary (μισθός) in nine others (see list below). Elsewhere, the employee is denied reimbursement of expenses and must return a prochreia, an advance payment, or an arrhabon, earnest money. Cf., e.g., SB I 4739.18-21 (VI/VII CE, Arsinoites): [εἰ δὲ ἀναχ]ωρήσω, [ἐπὶ τῷ με] | 19 [ἀναδοῦνα]ί σοι εἴ τ[ι ἔσχον] | 20 [παρὰ σοῦ] κ̣αὶ ἄνευ μ[ισθοῦ] | 21 [ἀναχωρῆσ]αι (‘If I withdraw, I will return to you all that I have received from you and leave without my salary’).
Bibl.: Berger (1911): 174-5; Jördens (1990): 160-161.
BGU I 3.20-24 (605, ArsPol) [penalty: exp.]; CPR VIII 82.8-9 (699/700, ArsN); XIX 33.15-18 (591, ArsPol) [penalty: misthos]; P.Erl. 74.7-9 (VI, UP) [penalty: misthos?]; P.Heid. V 345.8-12 (VIe, OxN) [penalty: prostimon]; 350.35-39 (612, ArsPol) [penalty: misthos]; P.Herm. 30.13-14 (552, OxN ?); P.Köln II 102.9-12 (418, OxN) [penalty: prochreia]; P.Mil. I 48.15-16 (549, Ox?) [penalty: prostimon]; P.Oxy. I 140.25-26 (550, Ox) [penalty: arrhabon]; LXXIII 4967.11-12 (VIl/ VIIe, Ox) [penalty: misthos]; P.Rein. II 105.6-7 (432, Ox) [penalty: prochreia]; P.Select. 4.6 (VIl/VIIe, UP) [penalty: prostimon]; SB I 4490.24-29 (641/656, ArsPol) [penalty: misthos]; 4739.18-21 (VI/VII, ArsN) [penalty: misthos]; XVIII 13585.3-5 (Vl/VIe, Herm) [penalty: phoros]; 13960.18-21 (VI/VII, ArsN) [penalty: misthos]; 13962.6-10 (630-645, ArsN); 13963.6-8 (VI/VII, ArsN) [penalty: misthos]; 13964.2-8 (VIIe, ArsN) [penalty: misthos].
3. Ἀπορρίπτειν
Category: Paramone
In wet-nurse contracts, the wet nurse is prohibited (μὴ ἐξέστω) from ‘throwing’ the nursling back to his assignor (ἀπορρίπτω, προσρίπτω) in the course of the contract. See P.Bour. 14.17-23 (126, Arsinoites), which is also the most detailed: μὴ ἐξέστω οὖν | 18 τῇ [Ἑλένῃ ἐντὸς] τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ χ̣ρό[νου] ἀπορρειφαις (l. ἀ̣πορρῖψαι) τῷ Σαραπί|19ων[ι τὸ δο]υ̣λικὸν σω̣[μ]ά̣τ̣ι̣[ον], μ̣ηδὲ παραθηλάσειν | 20 ἕτερ[ον μ]η̣[δὲ] φ̣θ̣ε̣ί̣ρ̣ε̣ι̣[ν] τ[ὸ] γάλα μη̣[δʼ] ἄλλο μηδὲν | 21 ἀσυμ̣φ̣ό̣ρ̣ω̣ς̣ αὐτῷ ἐπιτελεῖν (‘Let Helena not, in the course of the contract, cast back to Sarapion the slave, nor nurse at the breast an additional child, nor spoil her milk, nor undertake anything else prejudicial to him’). The use of ἀπορρίπτω in this context may shed light on the meaning of its derivative, and well-attested adjective ἀναπόρριφος, which likely means ‘that which cannot be returned’ by the receiver (cf., e.g., Kränzlein (1989): 326).
Bibl.: Herrmann (1962): 493 n. 22.
P.Bour. 14.17-23 (126, ArsN) [ἀπορρίπτω]; P.Oxy. LXXVIII 5168.14-16 (18A, Oxy); P.Ross.Georg. II 18 no. 74, ll. 319-320 (139/40, ArsN) [ἀπορρίπτω]; PSI III 203.7-8 (87, Ox) [προσρίπτω].
4. Apospasis
Category: Paramone
In the context of apprenticeship contracts, the apospasis clause prohibits the assignor from separating the apprentice from his master during the training period. All attestations of the clause in the context of the apprenticeship contract are early Roman, dating from the first through the third centuries CE. The clause is introduced by a prohibition formula: ‘οὐκ ἔξεστι’ (the finite οὐκ ἐξέσται, the participial οὐκ, and μὴ ἐξόντος, the infinitive construction μὴ ἐξεῖναι, and the imperative μὴ ἐξέστω) or the personal μὴ δύνασθαί με. Ἀποσπάω appears almost always in the present infinitive. This stands in sharp contrast to the apostasis, in which the aorist is generally used. The aspectual distinction becomes especially evident when both verbs are used in the same context. Cf., in particular, P.Ant. II 91.5-7 (VI CE, Antinoites?): εἰ δὲ | 6 [συμβαίν]ε̣ι̣ν ἀποσπᾶν αὐτου (read αὐτόν) ἀπὸ σοῦ ἢ αὐτὸν διʼ ἑαυτοῦ | 7 [ἀποστῆ]ν̣αι (‘If I happen to remove him from you, or he departs of his own accord’). Also in contrast to the apostasis, the clause rarely references the contract and or specifies the premises where the work is being carried out, from which the apprentice has now been removed; instead, after the preposition ἀπό, the master and the employer are identified. The duration of the contract is commonly expressed through the succinct phrase ἐντὸς τοῦ χρόνου, but other formulations are attested as well. Cf., e.g., P.Wisc. I 4.17-20 (53 CE, Oxyrhynchos): κ̣α̣ὶ̣ μ̣ὴ̣ [ἐ]ξ̣ε̣ῖ̣ν̣[αι] | 18 [ἀποσπᾶ]ν τῶιδε (l. τῷδε) τῶι Παυσίρι π[ατρὶ] | 19 τὸν παῖδα ἀπ̣ὸ̣ τοῦ δ̣ι̣δ̣ασκ̣ά̣[λου ἐν]|20τὸς τοῦ χρόνου (‘This Pausiris, the father shall not be allowed to remove the child from the teacher within the period of the contract’), and P.Iand. IV 62.15-17 (VI CE, UP): καὶ μὴ δύνασθαί με ἀποσπ̣[ᾶ]ν | 16 αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῆς σ̣ῆς ἐ[νδοξ(ότητος) πρὸ τῆς ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]| 17 κοι̣ ἀποδ̣[ό]σεως κα[ὶ σ]υνπληρ[ώσεως] (‘I shall not be able to remove from your glory before the settlement and full payment of the debt’).
Bibl.: Berger (1911): 169; Zambon (1935): 51, 63-64; Herrmann (1957/8): 122; Jördens (1990): 160-161; Bergamasco (1995): 117; Perdicoyianni-Paleologou (1999): 166; Straus (2017): 129, 131.
BGU IV 1106.47-48 (before 20.2.13, Alex); VII 1647.11-13 (129, Phil); P.Ant. II 91.2-5 (VI, AntinN?); P.Grenf. II 59.15-18 (189, ArsN); P.Iand. IV 62.15-17 (VI, UP); P.Köln VII 322.14-18 (VII, Herak); P.Mich. X 587.16-18 (24/5, Teb); P.Mich.Inv. 931 + P.Col. X 249.15-17 (10, Philagris); 4238.18-21 (128, Thead); P.Oxy. II 275.22-24 (66, Ox); IV 724.12-13 (155, Ox); IX 1206.12-14 (335, Ox); XVI 1895.11-12 (554, Ox); LXXVII 4596.21-25 (232/264, Ox); P.Wisc. I 4.17-20 (53, Ox); PSI VI 710.4-5 (II, Ox?); SB XXIV 16320.14 (293-304, Kellis).
5. Consequences of Apospasis
Category: Paramone, Penalty
The consequence of the apospasis—the separation of an apprentice from the master—is discussed in 13 documents. In six of them (1), it follows the apospasis clause and in five others (2) it stands independently. All cases except one are early Roman: six from Oxyrhynchos, four from the Arsinoites, and one from Alexandria ]but see also Jördens (1990): 160-161[. In all regions, the sanction for apospasis tends to be grouped with other forms of misconduct; the clearest and most detailed Arsinoite example is P.Mich. X 587.18-30 (24/5 CE, Tebtynis). The act of apospasis is explicitly recorded in the prodosis, in the subjunctive of the aorist tense. This is at variance with its description in the apospasis clause, where it routinely takes the present tense. It is not explicitly stated in the apodosis, where it may be subsumed under the verb ἀτακτέω (LSJ, p. 267, s.v. (1): neglect oneʼs duty, fail to discharge obligation): ἐὰν δὲ ἀπ̣οσπάσηι ἢ καὶ αὐτη{ι} ἑκοῦσα | 19 ἀπαλλαγῆι ἢ ἄλλ[ως] παραβῶσί τι τῶν προγεγραμμέν(ων) | 20 ἢ α̣ ̣η̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ου[σ]α̣ ἢ κ̣α̣τ̣αβλ̣α̣πτουσι (l. καταβλάπτουσα) ἢ νοσφιζενος (l. νοσφιζ‹ομ›ένη) | 21 ἁλίσκηται̣ τῶν̣ [Ἁ]ρμιύσιος ἢ τῶν παρʼ αὐτοῦ, ἢ λα|22βοῦσά τι φυλάσσ[ει]ν̣ μὴ παράσχηται σῶον, ἐὰν | 23 μή τι μετὰ βίας̣ ἀ̣φαιρεθῆι, ἀποτισάτω{ι} ‹ὁ› ὁμολογῶ(ν) | 24 Ἁρμιύσι παραχ[ρ]ῆ̣μα ἅς τʼ εἴληφεν παρʼ αὐτοῦ καθότι | 25 πρόκιται ἀργ(υρίου) [(δραχμὰς) τεσ]σαράκοντα ὀκτὼ{ι} μεθʼ ἡμιολίας | 26 καὶ τόκων καὶ ἐπ[ί]τιμον ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὰς) ἑκατὸν καὶ εἰς τὸ δημό(σιον) ‹τὰς ἴσας› | 27 καὶ τὸ βλάβος, κ[αὶ ἑ]κάστης ἡ̣μέρα̣ς ἧς ἐὰν ἀτα̣κ̣τ̣ή(σῃ) | 28 τῆς ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ς̣ χαλκοῦ ὀβολοὺς τρεῖς καὶ τὸ κεφ(άλαιον) | 29 καὶ τὸ ἀπόκλ̣ε̣μ̣μ̣α πενταπλοῦν, τὸ δὲ νοσφισμὸν | 30 ἡμιόλιον {ἡμιόλιον} τοὺς δὲ τόκους ἁπλοῦς (‘.… But if he removes her, or if she herself departs of her own free will, or if they violate any of the aforesaid terms in any other way, or if she is convicted of stealing, damaging, or removing anything belonging to Harmiysis or his representatives, or does not restore in sound condition whatever she has received to safeguard unless it is taken from her by force, the party of the first part shall pay forthwith to Harmiysis both the forty-eight silver drachmai that he has received from him, as aforesaid, increased by one half and with interest, and a fine of one hundred drachmai, and to the treasury the same amount, and the damages; and for each day of her misconduct . . . (he shall pay) three obols of bronze and the principal, and five times the value of the stolen object, and one and a half times the value of the object removed, along with simple interest’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 42-43).
The issue of the functional synonymy of ἀτακτέω and ἀποσπάω is also raised by the Oxyrhynchite evidence and appears to be disproved there. In the Oxyrhynchite evidence, another form of clustering occurs with the event of ἀτακτέω. The sanctions for the two forms of misconduct, however, differ: For ἀτακτέω, the original surrenderer must place his dependent at the employer’s disposal for a period of time equal to that of only to the apospasis and not to the ataxis, the dereliction of duties. For apospasis, a global penalty, ἐπίτιμον, is imposed in addition to the payment of the same amount to the fisc. Additionally, in the Oxyrhynchite evidence, the reference to the timeframe (ἐντὸς τοῦ χρόνου, πρὸ τοῦ χρόνου) appears to relate only to apospasis and not to ataxis. In the Oxyrhynchite evidence, ataxis refers to undisciplined but transient conduct, whereas apospasis denotes the definitive removal of the employee. In the Oxyrhynchites, the act of removal is expressed through an articular infinitive in the genitive (‘for…’). Here, too, the aspect is aorist and the voice is passive, thereby avoiding naming the perpetrator of the apospasis. E.g. P.Oxy.Hels. 29.33-38 (54 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ὅσας δʼ ἂν ὁ παῖς ἀτακτήσῃ ἡμέρας | 34 ἐπὶ τὰς ἴσας αὐτὸν παρέξεται ἡ Ἀπο\λ/|35λωνοῦς μετὰ τὸν χρόνον ἢ ἐκτίσ‹ε›ι ἑκάσ|36της ἡμέρας ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὴν) μίαν, τοῦ δʼ ἀποσ|37πασθῆναι πρὸ τοῦ χρ[ό]νου ἐπίτ̣ι̣μον | 38 ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὰς) ἑκα̣τὸν κ[αὶ] εἰς τὸ δη̣μ̣όσιον τὰ̣ς̣ ἴσας (‘For every day in which the slave acts without discipline, Apollonous must surrender him for an equal number of days after the contract period or she must pay as indemnity one drachm for each day. And for the event of removal before [the stipulated] time, she shall pay a penalty of one hundred drachms and an equal amount to the fisc’)
Bibl.: Berger (1911): 169-170; Zambon (1935): 63-64; Herrmann (1957/8): 130; Manca Masciadri – Montevecchi (1984): 25; Jördens (1990): 160-161; Bergamasco (1995): 120; Perdicoyianni-Paleologou (1999): 166.
BGU IV 1106.48-49 (13A, Alex); P.Ant. II 91.5-10 (VI, AntinN?) [independent; penalty: πρόστιμον]; P.Cair.Masp. III 67299.15-22 (527-565, Antin); P.Grenf. II 59.18-20 (189, ArsN); P.Mich. X 587.18-22 (24/5, Teb); P.Mich.Inv. 931 + P.Col. X 249 ll. 17-19 (10, Philagris); P.Oxy. II 275.28-31 (66, Ox); XVI 1895.12-13 (554, Ox); XLI 2971.35-37 (66, Ox); P.Oxy.Hels. 29.36-38 (54, Ox); P.Wisc. I 4.25-28 (53, Ox); PSI III 176.5-14 (V?, Ox); VI 710.4 (II, Ox?); X 1120.4-5 (IlA-Ie); SB X 10236.37-39 (36, Ox); XII 10946.25-28 (98-103, Ox); SPP XX 19; XXII 40.26-28 (150, SokN).
6. Apostasis
Category: Paramone
In 18 documents—nine leases, eight labour contracts, and one loan—the lessee/employee is prohibited from leaving the lessor/employer during the contract period. Most of the documents (14) are Byzantine, three are Roman, and one Ptolemaic. The text is introduced by a prohibition formula, either impersonal (οὐκ ἐξόντος μοι, οὐ δυνατόν μοι, μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἡμῖν) or with the lessee/employee as the subject (μὴ δύνασθαί με, μὴ δυναμένου τινὸς ἡμῶν). The verb ἀφίστημι appears primarily in the aorist infinitive form: ἀποστῆναι (13 cases) but is also attested in the medial of the present tense ἀφίστασθαι (2) and is followed in the genitive, usually introduced by the prepositions ἀπό, or ἐκ, by the term of the contract: γεωργία, ἔργα, ἐργασία, μίσθωσις, προστασία, παραμονή, χρεία. In only one case is the employer explicitly identified. The clause also sometimes sets out the timeframe: mostly πρὸ συμπληρώσεως τοῦ χρόνου, but also πρὸ τέλους, πρὸ περαιώσεως. Cf., e.g., P.Oxy. LVIII 3933.19-22 (588 CE, Oxyrhynchos): καὶ μὴ δύνασθαι | 20 με ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς σῆς θαυμασι(ότητος) | 21 καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς χρ̣ε̣ί̣α̣ς̣ πρὸ τέλους | 22 τοῦ εἰρημένου ἐνιαυτοῦ (…‘and I shall not be able to absent myself from your excellency and from the same service before the completion of said year’).
Bibl.: Gerstinger (1953): 206-212; Jördens (1990): 175, 257, 366; Freu (2022): 308-310.
BGU III 920.31-33 (212, Phil); XII 2186.11-12 (514?, Herm) [μὴ δύνασθαι]; XVII 2685.24-31 (585, Herm); P.Cair.Masp. II 67159.34-37 (568, Antin) [μὴ δυναμένου μήτε δυνησομένου ἀποστῆναι τῆς ἐργασίας]; P.Cair.Zen. I 59133.13-14 (256A, Phil); P.Gascou 30.22-27 (565-579, Aphr) [μὴ δύνασθαί με ἀποστῆναι τῆς ὁμονοίας]; P.Giss. I 56.22-24 (VI, HermN); P.Hamb. I 23.35-36 (569, Antin); P.Michael. 34.8-10 (VI, UP) [μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἀποστῆναι ἐκ τῆς γεωργίας καὶ μισθώσεως]; P.Oxy. LI 3641.15-17 (544, Ox) [ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς χρείας ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφειλόντων γενέσθαι ἔργων]; LVIII 3933.19-22 (588, Ox) [μὴ δύνασθαι με ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς σῆς θαυμασιότητος καὶ ἀπὸ χρείας πρὸ τέλους τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ]; P.Ross.Georg. III 40.24-26 (588, Sesiy) [ἀποστῆναι]; V 42.20-22 (602, HermN) [μὴ δύνασθαί με ἀποστῆναι πρὸ συμπληρώσεως τοῦ χρόνου]; P.Sarap. 51.16-18 (125, Herm); P.Stras. I 40.33-38 (569, Antin) [μηδαμῶς ἀποστῆναι τῆς δουλικῆς προστασίας μέχρι υπεραιώσεως τοῦ χρόνου]; PSI VII 789.10-11 (I/II, HermN) [οὐκ ἀποστησόμεθα]; SB VI 9151.2-7 (c. 600, Herm); 9085 inv. 16050, ll. 23-25 (579, Herm); XX 14969.4-6 (VI-VII, Herm) [ἀφίστασθαι τῆς ὑμετέρας παραμονῆς]; SPP XX 218.33-35 (VIIe?, HermN).
7. Consequences of Apostasis
Category: Paramone, Penalty
The consequences of and sanction for desertion by a lessee or employee of the lessor or employer are dealt with in 13 documents: eight labour contracts, four leases, and one loan. In three of them, this clause follows the apostasis clause itself. In at least nine of the other documents, however, it is introduced independently: the protasis registering the desertion and the apodosis outlining its consequences. In the protasis, the clause may derive from a modal verb: the future indicative of ἐθέλω (e.g., P.Cair.Masp. II 67158.21: 568 CE, Antinoopolis) or the optative aorist or present infinitive of συμβαίνω (e.g., SB I 4503.24: 605/7 CE, This). Both are followed by the infinitive aorist ἀποστῆναι. The verb ἀφίστημι is also used finitely either in the future indicative (ἀποστήσω: SB XX 14969.5: VI/VII CE, Hermopolis) or in the aorist optative (ἀποσταίην: P.Cair.Masp. II 67164.8: 569 CE, Antinoopolis). The third component, the object being deserted, stands in the genitive, mostly without an introductory preposition—either a place (οἶκος, πόλις), a contracted activity (γεωργία, ἐργασία, ἔργα, παραμονή), or the person of the employer. As in the case of the apospasis clause, the protasis may also indicate the timeframe: ἄχρι and πρὸ συμπληρώσεως, πρὸ περαιώσεως, πρὶν ἤ με ἀπολογήσασθαι, ἕως πληρουμένων τῶν ἐνιαυτῶν.
In the apodosis, the consequences are most often expressed in the future indicative: παρέξω, δώσω, ἐπιγνώσω. Alternatively, the aorist infinitive of the same verbs may follow the verb ὁμολογέω, from the constructions ἑτοίμως εἰμί, or from ἐπὶ τῷ (ἐμέ). In one case, the result of desertion is the withholding of the employee’s remuneration. In all other cases, the employee is liable to a cash payment that is usually termed a fine: πρόστιμον, ποινή, or bears no label. Three documents—P.Cair.Masp. II 67164 (569 CE, Antinoopolis), P.Prag. II 160 (Vm, Hermopolis), and SB XX 14969 (VI/VII CE, Hermopolis)—bear out the kindynos formulation; another, P.Cair.Masp. II 67159.41-44 (568 CE, Antinoopolis), stipulates payment without delay or excuse (δίχα κρίσεως κτλ.), along with the hypotheca generalis. P.Cair.Masp. II 67164.8-10 (569 CE, Antinoopolis) is paradigmatic: καὶ εἰ ἀποσταίην τῆς πόλ(εως) τῆσδε πρὶν ἤ̣ μ̣ε̣ | 9 ἀπολογήσασθαί σοι αὐτά, παρέξω σοι δίχα κρίσεως κ(αὶ) δίκης χρυσο(ῦ) νομισμ(άτιον) ἓν παρὰ κερ(άτια) | 10 ἓ̣ξ̣ τῷ αὐτῷ ζυγ(ῷ), κινδύνῳ πάσης μο(υ) εὐπορίας, διὰ το(ῦ) προσφέ̣ροντός \μοι/ το(ῦ)το τὸ ἀσφαλές (‘And if I depart from this city before I have settled my accounts with you, I will give you without conviction or suit one solidus minus six keratia by the same standard at the risk of all my assets, through the agency of the person presenting to me this document of security’).
Bibl.: Jördens (1990): 257.
BGU IV 1065.15-17 (98, ArsN) [independent]; XII 2186.12-13 (514?, Herm) [following apostasis]; XVII 2685.24-31 (585, Herm); CPR V 11.11-14 (IVe, UP); P.Cair.Masp. II 67158.21-23 (568, Antin) [independent]; 67159.41-44 (568, Antin) [independent; penalty: πρόστιμον]; II 67164.8-10 (569, Antin) [independent]; P.Flor. I 44.24-25 (158, PtolEu) [Independent]; P.Hamb. I 23.36-37 (569, Antin) [following apostasis; penalty: πρόστιμον]; P.Köln II 104.b.19-21 (VI, Aphr) [independent]; P.Oxy. LI 3641.16-17 (544, Ox) [following apostasis; penalty: πρόστιμον]; LVIII 3933.22-24 (588, Ox) [following apostasis]; P.Prag. II 160.7-9 (VIm, Herm) [independent; penalty: πρόστιμον]; P.Stras. V 489.2-3 (VI, HermN) [independent]; SB I 4503.24-27 (605/7, This) [independent; penalty: πρόστιμον]; XX 14969.5-6 (VI/VII, Herm) [independent; penalty: ποινή]; 15043.5-8 (VI/VII, Herm).
8. Day and Night Absence
Category: Paramone
Seventeen labour contracts stipulate the employee’s duty not to leave the employer’s house (ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας) by day or by night, sometimes adding the phrase ‘without his consent’ (ἄνευ τῆς γνώμης). The adjectives ἀφήμερος and ἀπόκοιτος, denoting the two activities, may be substituted by their verbal counterparts: ἀποκοιτέω and ἀφημερ̣εύω. The most common construction is participial. Cf., e.g., SPP XXII 40.16-19 (150 CE, Soknopaiou Nesos): οὐ γεινομέ|17νη ἀ̣φ̣ήμ̣[ε]ρος οὐδὲ ἀ̣π̣ό̣κοιτο[ς] ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Παυ|18σίρε̣ω̣[ς] ο̣ἰ̣κ̣ίας ἄνευ γ̣[ε] | 19 τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γνώμης (‘Her absence by day or by night from the house of Pausiris without his consent’), in either the subject case or the genitive. The clause may be introduced by the ‘prohibition formula’ (e.g., P.Yale I 26.4-5 (Ankyron Polis, IIIe BCE): μὴ ἐξουσία δʼ ἔστω Πόρωι | 5 μήτε ἀποκ̣[ο]ιτ̣[ε]ῖ̣ν̣ μ̣ήτε ἀφημερ̣[εύειν ἄνευ τῆς Ἐπι]μ̣ένου̣ς γνώμης (‘Let there be no possibility for Poros either to sleep away or be absent without Epimenes’ consent’) though it is not essential. Used in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods both in Egypt and in Dura Europos, the clause is also inserted into marriage documents, in the clause that prescribes the wife’s due conduct.
Bibl.: Westermann (1914): 310; Zambon (1935): 53-55; (1939): 101-102; Montevecchi (1950): 8; Herrmann (1957/8): 125-126; Adams: (1964): 138-141; Samuel (1965): 308-310; Hengstl (1972): 27-28; Bergamasco (1995): 127, 128 n. 101; Freu (2022): 33.
BGU IV 1126.11-12 (9A, Alex); CPR XVIII 18.375-376 (231A/206A, Theog); P.Bad. IV 86.9-13 (99, Hibeh) [apprenticeship]; P.Dura. 17d.43-44 (c. 180, Dura Europos); 20.9 (121, Paliga); P.Flor. I 44.21-23 (158, PtolEu); P.Mich. V 241.24-38, ll. 34-35 (46, Teb); 355.10-11 (c. 48-56, Teb); X 587.13-16 (24/5, Teb); P.Mich.Inv. 931 + P.Col. X 249.11-12 (10, Philagris); P.Oslo III 141.8-9 (50, Kar) [apprenticeship]; P.Ross.Georg. II 18 no. 72, ll. 303-304 (139/40, ArsN); P.Wisc. I 5.9-11 (185, Ox); P.Yale I 26.4-5 (IIIeA, Ankyron Polis); PSI V 549.12-13 (41A, Ox); SB VI 9094.9 (III, Ox?); SPP XXII 35.11-16 (50, SokN); 40.16-19 (150, SokN) [apprenticeship].
9. Consequences of Day and Night Absence
Category: Paramone, Penalty
Following the injunction against leaving the employer’s premises by day or by night, sanctions for such conduct are introduced. The most detailed iteration of this clause is from Dura Europos. P.Dura 20.9-10 (121 CE, Paliga) uses the verbal derivatives ἀφημερεύω and ἀποκοιτέω, followed by the preposition ἀπό and the name of the employer. The apodosis prescribes a set penalty for each day of absence: ἐὰν δὲ ἀφημερ̣ε̣ύ̣σ̣ῃ ἢ ἀποκοιτή̣σ̣[ῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ Φραάτου] | 10 [ἐκ]τ̣ε̣ί̣σ̣ε̣ι̣ ἑκ̣[άστης ἡμέρας δραχμὴν μίαν (‘If (the employee) absents himself from Phraates by day or by night, let him pay one drachm as indemnity for each day’). The principle of a per-diem penalty is evidenced in other texts as well. Some scribes, however, construct the sentence using a relative clause that they introduce in the genitive case by invoking the quantifying relative pronoun ὅσος modifying the time unit of absence (scil. ἡμέρα), and the verb παραμένω in the clause itself. So in P.Mich. V 355.12 (48-56 CE, Tebtynis): ἧς δὲ ἡμέρας {ἧς} ἐὰν μὴ παραμείνω{ι} ἐκτ‹ε›ίσω τῷ Ἥρωνι ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς δύο (‘For each day I do not remain, I shall pay Heron two silver drachms as indemnity’). Both P.Yale I 26.5-6 (IIIe BCE, Ankyron Polis) and PSI X 1120.1-3 (Il/IIe CE, Unknown Provenance) draw a conceptual distinction between day absence (ἀφημερεία) and night absence (ἀποκοιτία). See in particular the latter: ἀποτει[σάτω ὁ] Ἡ̣ρ̣[ά]κλειος Λου̣[κίῳ κ]αὶ Γαίῳ ἑκάσ[της] | μὲν ἀποκοιτίας̣ [ἢ ἀφ]ημερείας ἧς ἐὰν ποιήσηται ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὴν) μίαν (‘Let Herakleios pay Loukios and Gaios one drachma in indemnity for each absence by night or by day’). In this case, the subordinate clause is dispensed with, as is, perhaps, an explicit statement of the injunction of absence by day or by night. The discussion of day and night absence may be coupled with that of idleness. In P.Dura 20.9-10 (121 CE, Paliga), it is followed by treatment of illness for more than seven days (ll. 10-11): – ca.10 – ἐὰ]ν̣ δὲ ἀσθενήσῃ πλεῖον ἡμερῶν ἑπτ̣[ά, ἐκ]τ̣είσ̣ει ὁ̣ Β̣α̣ρ̣[λάας ἑκάστης ἡμέρας ἧς] | 10 [ἂν ἀ]ρ̣γ̣ήσῃ δρ̣α̣χ[μὴν] μ̣ί̣α̣[ν ] (‘If he is sick for more than seven days, Barlaas shall pay one drachm for each idle day’).
Bibl.: Adams (1964): 16; Samuel (1965): 308-310.
P.Dura. 17d.44 (c. 180, Dura Europos); 20.9-12 (121, Paliga); P.Mich. V 241.24-38 l. 35 (46, Teb); 355.12 (c. 48-56, Teb); P.Mich.Inv. 931 + P.Col. X 249.14-15 (10, Philagris); P.Yale I 26.5-6 (IIIeA, Ankyron Polis); PSI V 549.12-13 (41A, Ox); X 1120.1-3 (Il/IIe, UP); SPP XXII 35.11-16, ll. 16-19 (50, SokN).
10. Drasmos
Category: Paramone, Security, Warranty
Six documents recording the conveyance of slaves deal with the prospect of their flight and death. In one of them, BGU IV 1059.17-18 (30 BCE-14 CE, Alexandria), a parachoresis, the conveyor is exempted from liability for the flight or demise of the slave, and in another, P.Princ. III 151.13-15 (after 341 CE, Ibion), a lease of a slave, the lessee will be liable for both prospects. In another four cases, BGU 1147.29-32 (14/3 BCE, Alexandria), P.Dura 20.12-14 (121 CE, Paliga), P.Oslo II 40a.22-25 (150 CE, Oxyrhynchos) and PSI VI 710.7-9 (II CE, Oxyrhynchos?), all loan contracts, the slave is given as security for the debt and it is affirmed that damage or unavailability shall not compromise the creditor’s right to recover the debt. In this respect, the clause is functionally identical to that which anticipates the Destruction or Debasement of the Hypothecated Asset. Cf., e.g., P.Oslo II 40a.22-25: δρασμὸς | 23 [δὲ ἢ θά]νατος ἢ [σί]νος ἐὰν συμβῇ τ[ῆς] αὐτῆς Ἰσα[ρο]ῦτος καὶ τῶν ἐσομένων ἐκγόνων | 24 [οὐδὲν] βλάβο[ς ἐ]ξακολουθή̣σει τ[ῷ αὐτῷ κεφ]α̣λαίῳ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ τοῖς τόκοις οὐδὲ μέρει δ̣ιὰ [τὸ] εἶναι | 25 [πάντα ἀ]κίνδυν[α] παντὸς κ̣ινδ̣ύ̣ν[ο]υ (….’flight, death or mischief, if any of them occur to said Isarous and her future offspring, no damage shall be caused to said principal or said interest, nor even to some of it, since everything is guaranteed against all risk’).
Bibl.: Pringsheim (1950): 461-463; Wollentin (1961): 45-46; Bieźunska-Małovist (1971): 88-90.
BGU IV 1059.17-18 (30A-14, Alex); 1147.29-32 (14/3A, Alex); 1149.33-37 (13A, Alex); P.Dura 20.12-14 (121, Paliga); P.Oslo II 40a.22-25 (121, Paliga); 40b.22-24 (150, Ox); P.Princ. III 151.13-15 (after 341, Ibion); PSI VI 710.7-9 (II, Ox?).
11. Ekballein
Category: Paramone
In 13 documents, nine of which are contracts of lease, the landholder is enjoined against casting out or casting away the lessee/employee. The documents extend over the Roman and the Byzantine periods; all key provenances are represented. The clause begins with the routine prohibition formulations, in both the personal μὴ δύναμαί με and the impersonal μὴ/οὐκ ἔξεστι. The verb varies: both ἐκβάλλω and ἀποβάλλω are equally attested, the latter also in the medial voice. The object, mostly physical (the land or house leased) rather than contractual, is recorded in the genitive and is introduced by one of the prepositions ἐξ, ἐκτός, ἀπό, or not. An indication of the timeframe is common but not indispensable. Cf., e.g., SB V 7814.33-34 (256 CE, Oxyrhynchos): οὐκ ἐξόντος τῷ γεούχῳ ἐντὸ[ς] τοῦ χρόνο[υ] | 34 ἀπ[οβ]αλέσθαι τ[ο]ὺς μεμισθωμένου[ς] (‘The landowner shall not be allowed to cast away the lessees during the period of the contract’).
Bibl.: Berger (1911): 162; Taubenschlag (1955): 367; Herrmann (1958): 158; Müller (1985): 184-185, 238; Freu (2022): 310.
BGU IV 1115.23-25 (13A, Alex) [μὴ ἐγβαλεῖν ἐντὸς τοῦ χρόνου]; 1156v.25-26 (14/3A, Alex); VI 1282.15-16 (IIA/IA, ArsN?): [μηδὲ ἐξέσται ἐγβαλεῖν]; P.Cair.Masp. III 67305.12-13 (568, Antin) [ἐκβαλεῖν σε ἄκοντα]; P.Flor. III 384.90-92 (489?, Herm) [οὔτε ἐμὲ ἀποβαλέσθαι χωρὶς …. προφανοῦς αἰτίας]; P.Fouad I 44.17-18 (44, Ox) [μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἐγβάλλειν ἐντὸς τοῦ χρόνου]; P.Haun. III 56.12 (IV-V, UP) [βαλεῖν]; P.Michael. 44.16-18 (527, Aphr) [μὴ δυναμένου ἐκβαλεῖν πρὶν τῆς ἀποδόσεως]; P.Mil.Vogl. III 143.18-19 (170/1, Teb); P.Monts.Roca IV 78.14-16 (49-54, Ox) [μὴ οὔσης ἐξουσίας ἐγβάλλειν?]; P.Oxf. 12.20-22 (153/4. ArsN); P.Oxy. IX 1206.10-12 (335, Ox) [ἀπώσασθαι, εἰς δουλαγωγίαν ἄγειν]; XIV 1641.6-8 (68, Ox) [οὐκ οὔσης ἐξουσίας ἐκβάλλειν]; P.Rein. I 43.16-18 (102, Ibion Takelmeos) [οὐκ ἐξέσται ἀποβαλεῖν ἐντὸς τοῦ χρόνου]; P.Ross.Georg. III 39.10 (584, ArsPol): [ἀποβαλέσθαι]; P.Stras. IV 247.18-20 (550/1/2, Herm); P.Tebt. I 105.31 (103A, Kerkeosiris) [μὴ ἐξέστω μεταμισθοῦν μηδʼ ἐγβάλλειν πρὸ τοῦ χρόνου]; PSI I 32.17-19 (208, HerakN) [μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἀποβαλέσθαι]; IV 287.20-24 (377, Ox); IX 1056.16-18 (VII, ArsN) [μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἐκβληθῆναι ἕως συμπληρώσεως τῆς ἑξαετίας]; SB I 4495.3-4 (IV-VII, ArsN) [ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἀποδιῶξαι]; V 7814.33-34 (256, Ox) [οὐκ ἐξόντος ἐντὸς τοῦ χρόνου ἀποβαλέσθαι]; XVI 13041.4-6 (I/II, Ox) [μὴ οὔσης ἐξουσίας ἐκβάλλειν μέχρι τοῦ τὸν χρόνον πληρωθῆναι].
12. Consequences of Ekballein
Category: Paramone, Penalty
In other types of ‘paramonic’ clauses, i.e., those aiming at securing the physical foundations of the contract during its period of effect, there is frequently an evidentiary overlap between a clause documenting a precept and one that prescribes a penalty for failing to abide by the precept (compare, e.g., the correlation between apostasis and no-apostasis clauses). This, however, is not the case with the prohibition of casting out the employee. Thirteen documents prohibit such an act and 11 introduce sanctions, but no document does both. Additional significant differences appear: (1) documents enunciating the precept extend over the Roman and the Byzantine periods alike whereas those introducing penalties are all Byzantine (sixth and seventh centuries CE). (2) Most contracts in the former group are leases; a majority of those in the latter concern labour. (3) In the former, the scribe uses ἐκβάλλειν and ἀποβάλλειν with equal frequency. In the latter, it is almost always ἐκβάλλειν and always in the active voice. (4) Where the precept is given, the employee (usually the lessee) is cast out of a place or an object; where the sanction is prescribed, he is cast out of a contractual status or a contract. (5) In the case of sanction, the event described in the protasis involves casting out the employee ‘without just cause’. Such a consideration is not mentioned at all in the case of an independent prohibition. All these considerations make one postulate that, beyond the terminological and practical affinity, the ἐκβάλλειν clause, on the one hand, and the no-ἐκβάλλειν clause, on the other, reflect two distinct institutions. Cf., e.g., BGU I 310.20-23 (663 CE?, Arsinoites): εἰδὲ [καὶ σὺ ἀ]π̣ο̣βάλῃς με | 21 [ἄνευ καταγνώσ]εως καὶ π[α]ραφρονήσεως | 22 [ἐπὶ τῷ λαβεῖν με] τ̣ὸν μισθὸν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ | 23 [εἰς πλῆρες (‘And if you cast me away without my being subject to condemnation or showing contempt, I shall receive my yearly wages in full’).
Bibl.: Berger (1911): 160, 174; Hengstl (1972): 116; Jördens (1990): 161-162; Bergamasco (1995): 117; Freu (2022): 309-310.
BGU I 310.20-23 (663?, ArsN); X 1964.4-11 (221A-205A, Tholt); P.Cair.Masp. III 67305.21-23 (568, Antin); P.Duk.Inv. 728.11-14 (518-527?, UP) [deed of gift]; P.Erl. 74.9-11 (VI, UP); P.Heid. V 350.39-41 (612, ArsPol); P.Köln II 104.b.21-24 (VI, Aphr); P.Mil. I 41.16 (549, Ox); P.Oxy. I 140.26-28 (550, Ox); LI 3641.17-19 (544, Ox); LVIII 3933.24-27 (588, Ox); LXXIII 4967.12-15 (VIl/VIIe, Ox); P.Select. 4.4-8 (VI/VII, UP); PSI IX 1056.18-19 (VII, ArsN); SB I 4503.27-30 (605/607, This).
13. Prolipein, Apolipein
Category: Paramone
Among the clauses in the paramone family, only the present clause, revolving around some compound of the verb λείπω, is commonly applied in lease contracts. It seems to be particularly well attested in the Arsinoite nome, with as many as 43 cases, but is also recorded in source material from Alexandria, where it is used in connection with nursing contracts, and in the Oxyrhynchite nome. The clause is positioned after the one recording the rent and precedes a detailed elaboration of the lessee’s duties (cf. e.g., BGU II 644.27-28: 69 CE, Soknopaiou Nesos). In no instance is the clause followed by a sanction for its violation. The clause is introduced by a prohibition formulation: μή or the imperative, indicative, or infinitive of ἔξεστιν. The lessee stands in the dative. The scribe uses different compounds of λείπω to denote departure. In the Arsinoites, προλείπω and ἐκλείπω are by far the most common. The form ἐγκαταλείπω occurs in source material from the Oxyrhynchite and Hermopolite nomes. While other tenses are occasionally used, the aorist is by far the most common. The object is in the accusative and is mostly the contract (ἔλλημψις, μίσθωσις, παραμονή, τροφεῖα), and not the location or the person of the lessor. An indication of time is the prevailing rule: ἐντὸς τοῦ χρόνου. The ‘all manners’ formulation (κατ᾽ οὐδένα τρόπον) is common but not indispensable. For the Arsinoite formulation, see, e.g., BGU I 197.15-16 (17 CE, Dionysias): μὴ ἐξέστωι [τοῖς μεμισ]|16θωμένοις προλιπεῖν τὴν μίσθωσιν ἐ[ν]τὸς τοῦ χρόν[ου (‘Let the lessors not be allowed to leave the lease in the course of the contract’). Compare also D. 19.2.54.1 (Paul. 5 resp.), D. 19.2.55.2 (Paul. 2 sent.).
Bibl.: Herrmann (1958): 169; Adams (1964): 53; Müller (1985): 184-185; Rupprecht (1990): 125.
BGU I 197.15-16 (17, Dionysias) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; II 519.19-20 (IV, Phil) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 586.15-17 (324, ArsPol) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 606.8-9 (306, PtolEu) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 644.27-28 (69, SokN) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; III 916.23-25 (69-79, Herakleidou Meris) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; IV 1055.14-16 (13A, Alex); 1058.36-37 (13A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, tropheia]; 1106.34-35 (before 20/2/13A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, tropheia]; 1107.18-19 (before 27/3/13A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, tropheia]; 1109.22-23 (5A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, tropheia]; 1116.20-21 (13A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 1117.21-25 (3A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 1118.32 (22A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 1119.27-28 (6/5A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 1120.34-35 (5A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 1121.29-30 (5A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 1122.21 (13A, Alex) [ἐκλιπεῖν, eklempsis]; 1126.15-16 (9A, Alex) [ἐκλείψειν, paramone]; VI 1272.16 (173A, Hephaistias) [ἐκχωρεῖν, misthosis]; 1282.13-15 (IIA/IA, ArsN?) [καταλιπεῖν, kerameion]; VII 1644.13-15 (294?, Phil); CPR I 31.18-20 (153, ArsN) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 244.19 (II/III, ArsN) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; V 11.7-10 (IVe, UP) [ἐνκαταλείπειν σε]; P.Athen. 14.20-21 (22, Phil) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Batav. 3.30-32 (109A, Ta Memnoneia) [ἐκλιπεῖν, τὴν γῆν]; P.Berl.Leihg. I 19.22-25 (221/2 or 225/6, Kerkesephis) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Cair.Isid. 99.15-17 (297, Kar) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 102.16-17 (303/4, ArsN) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Col. VII 179.15-16 (300, Kar) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; X 273r.24 (204, Ox); 280.18-19 (269/70 or 276/7, Ox?) [ἐνκαταλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Flor. I 16.14-16 (239, Euh) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 41.22-23 (140, Teb) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Genov. I 32.19-21 (155, Antin); P.Köln XIV 579a.13-15 (III, Ox) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Laur. III 72.12-13 (118-138, PtolEu) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Mert. I 10.14-15 (21, Phil) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Mich. V 348.26 (26, Teb) [προλιπεῖν, metoche]; X 586.10-11 (c. 30, Teb) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; XII 633.28-29 (c. 30, Teb) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Michael. 22.15-16 (291, Teb) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 24.20-23 (297, Teb) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Mil.Vogl. III 143.16-18 (170/1, Teb) [ed.: ἐν[καταλεῖ]ψ̣α̣ι̣ τ̣ὴ̣ν μίσθωσιν;]; P.Oxf. 10.23-24 (98-117, Thead) [ἀπαλλαγῆναι]; 12.19-20 (153/4, ArsN) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Oxy. LVII 3912.14-18 (266?, Ox) [ἀπολειφθήσεσθαι]; P.Ross.Georg. II 19.44-45 (141, Ox) [ἐνκαταλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Ryl. IV 601.17 (26A, PtolEu)?; P.Sakaon 67.11-13 (321, Thead) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 71.20-21 (306, Thead) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 73.10-12 (328, Thead) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Soter. 1.17-19 (69, Thead) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 2.15-16 (71, Thead) [προλειπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Stras. IV 258.9 (II, ArsN) [οὐ διαλείψοντες τὴν[..];]; V 465.13-15 (230, Polydeukia) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; VI 535.10-11 (II, ArsN) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Tebt. I 105.38-39 (103A, Kerkeosiris) ?; 106.23 (101A, PtolEu) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; II 378.16-17 (265, Teb) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Turner 37.13-15 (270, PtolEu) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; P.Worp. 20.19-20 (155, Antin) [misthosis]; P.Wisc. II 52.12-13 (32, Kar) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; PSI Ι 32.17-18 (208, HerakN) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; IV 316.12-13 (328, Ox) [καταλειψαι, μέρος ταύτης [τῆς γῆς];]; PSI VII 787.14-15 (176/7?, ArsN) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; IX 1020.13-14 (110A, PathN) [ἐλλείπειν]; XV 1518.14-15 (34/5/6, Bac) [ἐνκαταλιπεῖν, misthosis]; SB VI 9562.12-13 (214, Phil) [καταλεῖψαι, misthosis]; XIV 11279.29-30 (44, Thead) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 11933.33 (27A, PtolEu) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; XVI 12539.17-18 (26, Teb) [ἐκλιπεῖν, misthosis]; XVI 13017.14-17 (24A, SokN) [προλιπεῖν, misthosis]; 16569.16-18 (62?, Euh) [προλιπεῖν*, misthosis*].
14. Consequences of Prolipein, Apolipein
Category: Paramone, Penalty
A clause dealing specifically with the consequences of physical departure is recorded in four documents. In two of them, P.Oxy. VIII 1124.15-18 (26 CE, Oxyrhynchos); PSI X 1120.5-9 (Il BCE/Ie CE, Unknown Provenance), a loan with a paramone, the penalty for departure is recorded in a longer list of breaches including theft and apospasis. In all cases, the penalty is proportional to the amount of the loan: τὸ δʼ ἐπιδειχθὲν κλέμμα ἢ νόσφισμα διπλοῦν, τοῦ δὲ ἀπο|5σπασθῆναι ἐντὸς τοῦ χρόνου ἢ εἰς τέλος ἐνκαταλιπεῖ(ν) | 6 τὴν παραμονὴν τό τε ἀργύριον παραχρῆμα μεθʼ ἡμιολίας | 7 καὶ τόκον ἀφʼ οὗ ἐὰν παρασυγγραφήσῃ χρόνου δραχμὰς δ̣ύ̣[ο] | 8 τῇ μνᾷ τὸν μῆνα ἕκαστον καὶ ἐπίτιμ̣ον ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὰς) | 9 διακοσίας καὶ εἰς τὸ δημόσιον τὰς ἴσας (‘For an apprehended act of theft or removal twice (the amount of the loan), for a removal (apospasis) during the term of the contract or for complete abandonment of the paramone immediate payment of the amount of the loan with an hemiolia, and interest from the time at which the breach of the contract occurred, each month two drachms per mina, a penalty of two hundred drachms and the same amount to the fisc’). In the two remaining texts, P.Oxf. 10.23-25 (98-117 CE, Theadelphia) and SB III 7188.29-32 (154 CE, Arsinoites), the case of departure is discussed independently. The consequences differ: an epitimon and compensation for damage in the latter text, a per diem compensation with an hemiolia in the former. P.Oxf. 10.23-25: ἐὰν δὲ ἀπαλλαγῇ, ἐ̣κ̣[τισάτω] | 24 ἑκάστης ἡμέρας, ἧς ἐὰν προλείψῃ τὰ χοιρίδια, | 25 δραχμὰς δύο καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον σὺν ἡμιολίᾳ (‘But if he leaves prematurely, he has to pay two drachmae for each day he abandons the pigs prematurely plus the balance of the loan increased by one half’).
Bibl.: Waszyński (1905): 90; Berger (1911): 154, 163; Herrmann (1958): 148; Hengstl (1972): 16.
P.Oxf. 10.23-25 (98-117, Thead); P.Oxy. VIII 1124.15-18 (26, Ox); PSI X 1120.5-9 (IlA/Ie, UP); SB III 7188.29-32 (154, ArsN).
15. Paramone
Category: Paramone
The paramone, broadly defined as the provision that obliges one of the contracting parties to stay with the other, is widely attested in contracts of labour, lease, and loan (see in this section: anachoresis, apospasis, apostasis, day and night absence, drasmos, ekbalein, and prolipein/apolipein). It occurs in 196 texts, to which one may add documents that record sanctions for breach of the paramone, sometimes without referencing the prohibitions per se. In these cases, the duty of paramone is formulated negatively: the employee should not be removed from, and should not abandon, the contract. Positive enforcement of the paramone is undertaken through the use of the verb παch180.xhtml#prolipein-apolipeinραμένω, which may appear in different formulaic contexts. For example, in the clause of a labour contract that records the employee’s duties (see obligations in Labour), the verb appears mostly in the participial form. Moreover, in some cases παραμένω is the main verb in the sentence, but it is embedded within a different clause. In P.Oxf. 10 (98-102 CE, Theadelphia), for example, it is embedded in the antichresis clause (‘antichresis: persons’).
The documents treated here are somewhat different because the verb παραμένω stands at the focus of the clause. Although documented throughout the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, this clause is generally not very common, nor does the evidence present any clear regional pattern. The clause is frequently integrated into the flow of the contract after the creation clause through ἐφʼ ᾧ, followed by some form of παραμένω. Such is already the case in the early Ptolemaic era—CPR XVIII 18.371-374 (231 or 206 BCE, Theogonis)— where, upon the receipt of a loan, the debtor is obligated to stay with the creditor and follow the latter’s instructions: ἐφʼ ὧι παρα|372μ̣[εν]ε̣ῖ̣ Π̣ύ̣θ̣[ων Ἀ]ρκάδι ἔτη δέκα̣ ἀπὸ | 373\μ̣ηνὸς̣/ Ὑπ̣ε̣ρ̣β̣ε̣[ρεταίου το]ῦ̣ ιϛ̣ (ἔτους) ποι̣ῶν τὰ προσ|374τασσόμ[ενα αὐτῶι] (‘On the condition that Pythos will stay with Arkas ten years from the month of Hyperberetaios of the 16th year, performing all that he is ordered’). The same formulation recurs in the Byzantine era: P.Stras. I 40.30-33 (569 CE, Antinoopolis): ἐφʼ ᾧ αὐτὸν παραμεῖναι τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ λαμπρᾷ σο̣[φ]ί̣ᾳ κ[αὶ] | 31 προσεδρεύειν καθαρῶ̣ς̣ καὶ ἀ̣δ̣[ό]λ̣[ω]ς̣ κ̣[α]ὶ̣ ε̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] κ̣[αὶ] τ̣α̣ῖ̣ς̣ ἡ̣μ̣[ε]ρ̣(ίαις) | 32 χρείαις γνησίως καὶ ἐνδια[ρ]κ̣ῶς καὶ πᾶσαν ἐπε̣ίξ̣ασθαι δου̣λ̣ικῇ̣ | 33 α̣ὐτῇ̣ ὑπηρεσίαν εἴτε ἐπʼ ἀλλο̣δ̣απῆς γῆς (‘So that he will stay with your bright wisdom and will serve her honestly, guilelessly, [ – – ], orderly and satisfactorily in the daily services, and that he will display all service with servile sedulity even in a foreign land’). The shift from the future indicative to the aorist infinitive echoes a general change in the function of the ἐφʼ ᾧ construction (compare, e.g., the creation of prospective employer–employee relationship, obligations in lease, irrigation). The scribe may use additional constructions for the paramone: the future indicative (P.Cair.Isid. 80.11-13: 296 CE, Arsinoites; P.Cair.Zenon I 59133.11-13: 256 BCE, Philadelphia) or the infinitive-introduced ὁμολογέω. In that case, the verb παραμένω appears in the future or (in the Byzantine period) in the aorist tense: SB XX 14400.4-10 (VI/VII CE, Unknown Provenance): [ὁμολογῶ πα]ραμεῖναι τῷ ὑμετ‹έ›ρῳ | 5 [- ca.12 -] ̣ιδος ἀπὸ Μεσ[ο]ρ̣[ὴ κ] | 6 [τῆς τετάρτης] ἰ̣νδ(ικτίωνος) ἕως Μεσορὴ κ | 7 [τῆς εἰσιούσ]ης πέμπτης ἰνδ(ικτίωνος) | 8 [καὶ ποιήσασθ]α̣ι πᾶσαν ὑπουργίαν | 9 [ἀκαταγνώστως] καὶ ἀκαταφρονή̣τ̣ω[ς] | 10 [καὶ τὰ πάντα ἀρ]ᾳδιουργήτως (‘I acknowledge that I shall stay with your – – from Mesore 20th of the fourth indiction until Mesore 20th of the following fifth indiction, and shall execute all service unexceptionably and irreproachably, and will discharge everything without sloth’).
Bibl.: Montevecchi (1950): 8; Herrmann (1957/8): 126; Adams (1964): 2-6; Hengstl (1972): 24, 28; Jördens (1990): 293-204.
BGU IV 1126.6-11 (9A, Alex.); XIX 2808.23-24 (528, Herm); CPR XVIII 18.371-376 (231A/206A, Theog) [ed.: ἐφʼ ὧι παρα|372μ̣[εν]ε̣ῖ̣;]; P.Aberd. 56.13-17 (176, PtolEu); P.Amst. I 41.14-15 (10A, PtolEu) P.Alex. 8.8-12 (89, Boubastos); P.Bodl. I 41.13-15 (604, Herm); P.Brook. 97.11-12 (II, UP); P.Cair.Isid. 80.11-13 (296, ArsN); P.Cair.Masp. II 67164.7-8 (569, Antin); P.Cair.Zenon I 59133.11-13 (256A, Phil); P.Col.Inv. 131r.14-17 (58, Thead); P.Grenf. II 87.17-22 (602, Herm); P.Kell. I 40.9-12 (306/7, Kellis); P.Köln II 102.8-9 (418, OxN); Kron. 16.24-30 (138, Teb); P.Oxy. XXVII 2474.31-33 (III, Ox); P.Stras. I 40.30-33 (569, Antin); P.Vind.Tand. 28.25-27 (576/7, Herm); PSI V 549.8 (41A, Ox); IX 1037.24-26 (301, Ox); X 1120.12-14 (IlA/Ie, UP); SB IV 7358.7-9 (277-282, Kar); XX 14400.4-10 (VI/VII, UP).
16. Consequences of Failed Paramone
Category: Paramone, Penalty
Among the multiple types of clauses that sanction temporary or permanent abandonment by the employee of the service of the employer, only four impose a sanction on failure-to-remain (μὴ παραμένειν) with the employer. In all these cases, the sanction is pecuniary. In one case, P.Ross.Georg. II 18 XVII l. 82 (139/40 CE, Arsinoites), a return of the prodoma is prescribed; in another, the payment of an epitimon is indicated (BGU VI 1258.4-6, l. 6: 154/3 or 143/2 BCE Hermopolis?). In a third, P.Tebt. II 384.33-34 (10 CE, Tebtynis), no label is given: κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἐὰν μὴ παραμ‹ε›ίνῃ ἐκτίσω̣[μεν] (l. ἐκτίσομεν) [δρα]|34χμ̣[ὰς ἑκα]τ̣[ό]ν̣ (‘And if he does not stay, we shall pay as indemnity one hundred drachms’).
Bibl.: Berger (1911): 171-172; Freu (2022): 309.
BGU VI 1258.4-6 l. 6 (154/3A or 143/2A, Herm?); P. P.Ross.Georg. II 18 XVII l. 82 (139/40, ArsN); 18 no. 25.113-114 (139/40, ArsN) ?; P.Tebt. II 384.33-34 (10, Teb).
17. End of Paramone
Category: Paramone, Termination
In a single document only, P.Mich. V 241.24-38, l. 37 (46 CE, Tebtynis), the parties provide for the ‘dissolution’ of the paramone when the contract comes to an end: καὶ μετὰ τὸν χ̣ρ̣όνον ἀπολυθήσονται οἱ ὁμολ(ογοῦντες) τ̣[ῆς] π̣ρ̣οκ(ειμένης) παραμονῆς (… ‘and after the term the parties of the first part will be released from service’).
18. Metamisthosis
Category: Paramone, Termination
The metamisthosis clause regulates the ability of the lessor and the lessee to offer the object for lease to a third party (μεταμισθόω) (‘lease out to others’) or to cultivate it themselves (αὐτουργέω) (‘work with oneʼs own hand’). The clause is already incorporated into one document from late second century BCE Pathyris (PSI IX 1020.11-12: 110 BCE, Pathyrites). In the Roman period, it recurs in lease documents from the Arsinoite, Oxyrhynchite, and Hermopolite nomes, as well as in some from third-century CE Antinoopolis. It never becomes indispensable, however, in any of these regions. Introduced by the impersonal verb ἔξεστι, the clause may stipulate the following: [Type1] The lessor is allowed to lease out the object to a third party. Two common formulations here, for example, are P.Flor. III 383 (2) ll. 65-66 (234/5 CE, Antinoopolis): ἐπιθέματ(ος) δὲ γενομ̣[έ]νου [ἐξέσται ἑτέροις με]τ̣α̣μισθ(οῦν) ἢ καὶ αὐτουργ‹ε›ῖν | 66 [καὶ οὐ] χρησόμεθα τῷδε τῷ συν[χ]ρ̣η̣μ̣[ατισμῷ πρὸς ἕτερο]ν δίκαιο̣ν̣ (‘Should a higher bid be made, it will be allowed (for the lessor) to later lease out to others or cultivate it himself, and we will not use the present agreement for any other legal purpose’). This is by far the most common type. [Type2] The lessor is prohibited from leasing out the land to others or cultivating it himself for the duration of the contract. Cf., e.g., P.Oxy. I 101.47-49 (142 CE, Oxyrhynchos): οὐκ ἐξόντος τῇ μεμισθωκυίῃ (l. μεμισθωκυίᾳ) ἑτέ|48ροις μεταμισθοῦν οὐδὲ αὐτουργεῖν ἐν|49 τὸς τοῦ χρόνου (‘It shall not be allowed for the lessor to lease out the land to others or to cultivate it herself in the course of the contract’). The latter prohibition may also be expressed through the adjectives ἀμεταμίσθωτος and ἀναυτούργητος. Cf., e.g., P.Iand. III 26.28-30 (98 CE, Arsinoites): ἀμετα|29[μί]σθωτα ἑτέροις καὶ ἀναυ|30τούργη̣τ̣α̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[.]… (‘The land not being qualified for leasing out to others or to cultivation by the lessor himself’). [Type3] The lessee is prohibited from subletting the object. P.Mert. II 76.38-39 (181 CE, Oxyrhynchos): οὐκ ἐξόν̣τ̣[ος] τῷ μεμι[σθωμένῳ] | 39 ἑτέροις μεταμισθοῖν (l. μεταμισθοῦν) τὸ ἐργ̣[ασ]τ̣ηρ̣[ίου μέρος (‘The lessee may not sublet part of the workshop to others’). [Type4] The lessee is allowed to sublet the object: SB X 14337.28-29 (103 CE, Oxyrhynchos): ἐξέστ̣α̣ι̣ δὲ τῷ μεμι̣[σ]|29[θωμένῳ] ἑ̣τ̣έ̣ρ̣ο̣ι̣ς̣ μ̣ε̣ταμ[ισθοῦν ἐ]π̣ὶ λα̣χαν̣ε̣ί̣α[ν] (‘The lessee may sublet (the garden and olive-yard) to others for vegetable gardening’).
Bibl.: Berger (1911): 158, 174; Taubenschlag (1933): 254; Herrmann (1958): 160; Hennig (1967): 79; Hombert (1975): 607-608; Rupprecht (1982a): 237; Müller (1985): 185-186, 239-241, 189-190; Rowlandson (1996): 204; Freu (2022): 97.
BGU IV 1092.25-26 (372, Herm) [2]; 1122.30-33 (13A, Alex) [1, penalty]; P.Aberd. 45.18-21 (141?, SokN) [1]; P.Amh. II 85.17-21 (78, Herm) [2]; 86.16-17 (78, Herm) [1]; 92.23-24 (162/3, SokN) [1]; P.Athen. 14.21-22 (22, Phil) [2]; P.Batav. 3.28-30 (109A, Ta Memnoneia) [1]; P.Bodl. I 34.26-28 (158/9, ArsN) [1]; P.Cair.Preis. 38.8-11 (IV, UP) [1?]; P.Col. III 54.18-19 (256A, ArsN) [1, penalty]; P.Flor. III 383.1.29-31 (234/5, Antin) [1]; 383.2.65-66 (234/5, Antin) [1]; 384.106-108 (489?, Herm) [1]; P.Iand. III 26.28-30 (98, ArsN) [2]; P.Lond. V 1698.7-8 (VI, Aphr) [2?]; P.Mert. II 76.38-39 (181, Ox) [3]; P.Mil.Vogl. II 67.12-13 (165, Teb) [1]/[4]; III 130.39-40 (165, Teb) [1]/[4]; VI 272.8-9 (165, Teb) [1]/[4]; P.Oxy. I 101.47-48 (142, Ox) [2]; III 498.40-45 (II, Ox) [1]; XXII 2351.58-62 (112, Ox) [1]; LXIX 4739.26-29 (127, Ox) [2]; P.Ryl. II 172.29-33 (208, ArsN) [1: ἐπὰν μή τις προσθῇ σοι, μενεῖς ἐπὶ τῇ προγεγραμμένῃ μισθώσει]; IV 600.14-15, 23-27 (8A, ArsN) [4]; P.Sarap. 22.9-10 (102/3 or 114/5, HermN) [2]; 27.26-28 (125, HermN) [2]; 28bis.6-7 (122, MagdMir); 45.24-26 (127, Sinkere) [1]; 47.15-16 (128, HermN) [1]; 48a.5-7 (123, HermN); P.Stras. V 387.9-12 (II, UP) [1]; P.Tebt. I 105.31 (103A, Kerk); II 378.29-30 (265, Teb) [2]/[3]; PSI IX 1020.11-12 (110A, PathN) [2]; SB IV 7474.16-17? (c. 254/5, ArsN) [1?]; XX 14337.28-29 (103, Ox) [4]; XXII 15346.19-21 ? (88/9, Kar) [1?: ed.: ὁπότε ἐὰν | 20[ -ca.?- ]ω̣ι ὑπὸ τὸ ἔλαιον | [ -ca.?- ἡ ἐπιδοχὴ ἀθε]τ̣ηθήσεται ἡμῖν;]; SPP V 119r.25-26 (before 266, Herm) [1]; 119r.3.23?-25 (266, Herm) [1]; 119r.7.24-26 (266, Herm) [1]; XXII 177.24-26 (136/7, SokN) [3].
