Chapter 6: Duties

Uri Yiftach

Chapter 6: Duties

Contractual duties are discussed in contracts of lease and labour. Several clauses in such contracts lay out the entire scope of the contractual duties (no. 1: lease, no. 11: labour, no. 29: wet nurse, 37: husband’s duties, 39: wife’s duties). In all other cases, the clauses are subject-specific. The duties of a lessee of agricultural land are addressed in eleven clauses. Some of them, such as the duty to maintain the dykes or to irrigate the land, may be recorded in a special clause. As a rule, however, lease contracts give a standardized account of the lessee’s duties, instructing him to perform ‘all the due works’. The document offers a more specific account of these works primarily under special circumstances, such as when the object of the lease is a fruit plantation, in particular a vineyard. The same pattern is observable in marriage documents, where, for example, a wife must not shame her husband in any manner that causes shame to husbands. In both cases, the document does not describe the due or prohibited conduct in detail. The general clause that reports the lessee’s duties is formulated as an independent sentence, always following the ‘creation clause’ and preceding that regulating the periodic payment of rent. Most of the other clauses do not exhibit such a consistent structure. In irrigation and construction clauses, among many other examples, affairs may be regulated in the genitive absolute, in a relative clause, or in a clause denoting purpose or circumstance, or as participles in creation clauses that report the assignment of person for the performance of designated duties. Ultimately, a general clause that lays down the duties of the lessee is affected by these trends as it is integrated in Late Antiquity into the creation clause.

Most of these clauses may be followed by clauses that sanction breaches, but the penalty clause seems routine only after the clauses that introduce the lessee’s duties to keep the land fallow and to sow it and, in marriage documents, after clauses stipulating the due marital conduct of each of the partners. Even in these cases, the clause that sanctions misconduct becomes obsolete by the beginning of the Roman period. Quite strikingly, sanctions are absent in the quantitatively most important clauses, those reporting lessees’ duties and regulating employees’ conduct. This absence was remedied in cases where the employee was subject to a penalty for any type of misconduct: showing contempt, causing damage, or committing theft. The three clauses, however, never pervade. The question of the prosecution of contractual misconduct thus requires further investigation.

Section I. Agricultural Context

1. Duties in Lease (general)

Category: Duties

Link to Synallagma

Most lease contracts record the lessee’s duties. In some cases, these duties are addressed in specific clauses (animals, construction and repair, epimeleia, expenses, fallow land, gone, irrigation, maintenance of dykes, and obligation to sow). Usually, however, the duties are addressed more generally, in a clause instructing the lessee to perform all requisite tasks [Type1]. This is an enduring practice, especially well attested in Arsinoite leases from both the Ptolemaic and the Roman periods and in documentation from Augustan Alexandria. The main term denoting these obligations is ἔργα, qualified by an adjective denoting a given type of work (most commonly γεωργικός) or a designation of due measure (τὰ καθήκοντα, ὅσα καθήκει). Still qualifying ἔργα, the text denotes the time frame (in the Roman period, commonly κατ᾽ ἔτος) and the object, in the genitive; in the Roman period, the list of objects undergoes considerable extension. Commonly attested are the construction of dykes (χωματισμός), irrigation (ποτισμός), ploughing (ὑποσχισμός), harrowing (διβολητός), embankment of canals (ἀναβολή), sowing (κατασπορά), weeding (βοτανισμός), in particular of the avena fatua (σιφωνολογία). The subject of the sentence is the lessee; the verb varies. In the Ptolemaic CPR XVIII 7 (231 or 207 BCE, Theogonis), it is κατεργάζομαι. In Augustan Alexandria and then in Roman Arsinoites, ἐπιτελέω and ἄγω are most frequently invoked. Participially added to the cultivation are the interdiction of damage (βλάβος μηδὲ ἓν ποιῶν) and the lessee’s right to sow: thus, e.g., σπείρων τὰς ἀρούρας οἷς ἐὰν αἱρῶμαι γένεσι πλὴν κνήκου (translation below) (Hennig (1972): 114; Hagedorn, 1974). For the resulting clause, amply attested in the first three centuries, see, e.g., P.Mert. III 107.17-19 (II CE, Arsinoites): καὶ ἐπιτελέ̣σομε̣ν τὰ κατʼ ἔτος ἔ̣[ργα π]ά̣ν|¹⁸[τα ὅσα καθήκει ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου τ]οῖς δέο̣υ̣σι καιροῖς βλάβος μηδὲν ποιο̣ῦ̣ν|¹⁹[τες σπείροντες οἷς ἐὰν αἱρ]ώ̣μ̣α̣ιθα (l. [αἱρ]ώμεθα) γέν̣εσι πλὴν γνήκου (l. κνήκου) (‘and we will carry out all yearly tasks such as are appropriate at our own expense in the proper seasons, doing no damage, sowing whatever crops we choose except cnecus’). (transl.: editio princeps, p. 28).

The text is also attested elsewhere (e.g., P.Col. X 284.13-14: 311, Oxyrhynchos). Still formulated as an independent sentence [Type1], it may record specific tasks. Such a detailed account is especially common in the case of fruit plantations (particularly vineyards) or other special objects such as baths, factories, or boats. This group is commonly marked by the use of ποιέω plus nomen actionis. Cf., e.g., P.Oxy. L 3596.28-30 (c. 240-255, Oxyrhynchos): βεβαιουμένης δέ μοι τ̣ῆς ἐπιδοχῆς ποιήσ̣[ομα]ι̣ | ²⁹ [τὴν πλάσιν κα]ὶ̣ ὄπτησιν καὶ πίσσωσιν τῶν προκειμένων κούφων | ³⁰ κ̣α̣ὶ διπλοκεράμων καὶ διχόων (‘If my undertaking is confirmed, I shall carry out the making, firing, and pitching of the aforesaid jars’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 239).

Another means of designating the purpose [Type2] is set within the clause that reports the act of leasing. Here the account of the lessee’s duties is connected to the main clause by ἐπὶ τῷ, ὥστε, or ἐφʼ ᾧ, all with the infinitive, which is predominately in the aorist tense. Formulaically, the infinitive constructions closely resemble the nominal ones discussed below [Type3], both designating purpose. Accordingly, it is not surprising to encounter synonyms: ὄπτησις = ὀπτῆσαι, πίσσωσις = πισσῶσαι, σπορά= σπεῖραι, etc. Unlike the nominal construction, however, the infinitive is capable of developing into a complete clause, with the performer in the accusative. Thus, the infinitive construction may be used to record the full scope of the lessee’s duties, including those also covered by the obligations clause. This is the case, for example, with the verbs ἀρδεῦσαι (ἀρδεία), βοτανολογῆσαι (βοτανισμός, βοτανολογία), δαμάσαι (δέσις), πλάσαι (πλάσις), ποτίσαι (ποτισμός), πυροσπορῆσαι (πυροσπορεία), σκάπτειν (σκαφητός), σπερμοβολῆσαι (σπερμοβολία), τελέσαι, ὑπουργῆσαι (ὑπουργία), and φυλλολογῆσαι (φυλλολογία). As a consequence of its elasticity, [Type2] takes over in the Byzantine period all types of provisions that were treated, in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, in the independent clause.

The development of the infinitive construction had major terminological consequences: [1] the suffix –σμος ending, so typical in the Roman period, loses ground: cf., e.g, βοτανισμός (‘weeding’), is gradually replaced by βοτανολογία and then, in the infinitive construction, by βοτανολογῆσαι, and the noun ποτισμός is replaced by ποτίσαι. [2] Byzantine lease contracts still exhibit nouns but they tend in many cases to be different from their Roman counterparts. The old ἔργα is replaced by ἐργασία, to which ἐπιμελεία, καλλιεργία, or φιλοκαλία are now occasionally added. The new terms convey no new information about the nature of the work, just about its quality. P.Hamb. I 23.21-29 (569 CE, Antinoopolis) may be used paradigmatically. It records, in lines 21–23, the clause that introduces, in general terms, the lessee’s duty to perform the agricultural work. Lines 23–29 record, mostly in the infinitive aorist, six specific duties: irrigation, digging, pruning vines, building espaliers, uprooting weeds, and gathering leaves: ἐφʼ ᾧ ἡμᾶς τοῦτο ἔχειν | ²² ἐ̣πὶ̣ τ̣ὴ̣ν ἡμῶ̣ν̣ ἀμπελο̣υ̣ργικήν τε καὶ χε‹ι›ρικὴν ἐργασίαν καὶ πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ φιλοκα̣λίαν | ²³ ποιήσ̣[α]σ̣θαι δίχ̣[α οἵα]ς̣ [δ]ή[π]οτε ἀμελ̣ε̣ίας καὶ καταφρονήσεως καὶ ἀρδεῦσαι τοῦτο μετὰ το(ῦ) | ²⁴ γ̣ε̣ω̣ρ̣γ̣οῦ πωμα̣ρ[ίου] ἐκ τῶν ἐκεῖσε γεωργικῶν ζῴων ποτισμοῖς τοῖς δέουσιν ἀδειαλείπτως, | ²⁵ ἐν μὲν χειμῶ[νι δ]ισάκις (read δισσάκις) κα̣τὰ μῆνα̣, ἐν δὲ θέρει τρισάκις (read τρισσάκις) κατὰ μῆνα, καὶ ταῦτα (l. τοῦτο) | ²⁶ σκά̣πτειν κα̣[ὶ [το]ν (l. τὸ)] ἐκεῖσε [λ]αχάνιον̣ καὶ το(ῦ)το κλαδοτομῆσαι δικαίαις κλαδοτομίαις | ²⁷ κ̣αὶ ὑφορθ[ῶ]σ̣α̣ι̣ [τοῖ(?)]ς̣ ὑμετέροις μέντο[ι] καλάμοις καὶ βοτανολογῆσαι καὶ φυλλολογῆσαι | ²⁸ [ἁ]παξα̣πλῶ[ς καὶ] π̣ᾶ̣σ̣α̣ν τούτο(υ) πο̣ιεῖσθαι \ἐργασία̣ν̣/ ἀμέμπτως καὶ ἀκαταγνώστως κινδύνῳ | ²⁹ [ἡ]μῶν καὶ πόρ̣[ῳ τῆ]ς̣ ἡμῶν εὐπορίας (‘… on condition that we shall hold the vineyard for the purpose of our vine-dressing and manual work; carry out every type of repair without any type of negligence and disdain; irrigate it, together with the peasant’s orchard, by means of the farm animals that are located there in the due measure of irrigation, unremittingly, twice a month in the winter and three times in the summer; dig it about, as well as the vegetables located there; prune it, applying correct pruning with propping by means of our own reeds; to uproot weeds and gather leaves by all means; and perform all this diligently without reproach and blame at my own risk and mortgaging all my [property]’).

[Type3]: as early as the late Ptolemaic period, the purpose of the lease is also recorded in the clause that records the act of leasing. The purpose is reported through the prepositions εἰς and πρός, followed by a noun in the accusative. At least nineteen nouns are recorded: ἀνάκτησις (‘regaining for cultivation’), βρῶσις (‘pasture’), βοσκή (‘pasturage’), ἐπινομή (‘grazing after mowing’), ἐπισπορά (‘second crops’), κατάβρωσις (‘feeding’), κατάθεσις (‘planting’), κατανέμησις (‘pasturage’), κατανομή (‘pasture’), κοπή (‘cutting’), ξηρασία (‘drying of hay’), ξυλαμή (‘sowing’, ‘planting’), ξυλοκοπία (‘wood-cutting’), ὄπτησις (‘roasting’, ‘frying’), πίσσωσις (‘pitching over’), σπορά (‘sowing’), ὑδροπαροχία (‘furnishing water’), ὑπόκαυσις (‘burning of bricks’), χερσοκοπία (‘ploughing unirrigated land’). However, the designation of purpose is, in this case, functionally different from that in the clauses that elaborate obligations ([Type1] and [Type2]).

Rather than striving to report every single duty in minute detail, the document conveys the purpose of the lease in general terms. For most types of land, the designation is succinct; κατάθεσις, κοπή, and σπορά are the most commonly used. Other terms are used to designate objects that are relatively rarely documented: six of the 19 nouns used in this clause focus on grazeland (βρῶσις, βοσκή, ἐπινομή, κατάβρωσις, κατανέμησις, κατανομή) and two or three on the leasing of potteries (ὄπτησις, πίσσωσις, ὑπόκαυσις). [Type3] is frequently recorded alongside [Type1] and [Type2]. In the following list, however, are recorded only cases in which [Type3] is the only means of recording the lessee’s duties. Cf., e.g., P.Tebt. II 375.13–15 (140 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis?): (βούλομαι μισθώσασθαι) ε[ἰς] σπο|¹⁴ρὰν κ[αὶ] ἐπισπορὰν ὧν ἐὰν αἱρῶμαι καθʼ ἔτος πλ[ὴ]ν | ¹⁵ κριθ[ῆ]ς καὶ κνήκου (‘…(I wish to lease) for the purpose of sowing and resowing in the first year of the lease with whatever I choose, yearly, except barley and cnecus’).

In the Byzantine period, this clause, now introduced by the preposition πρός, is developed so as to give a detailed account of the duties of the lessee. Cf., e.g., P.Coll.Youtie II 89.12–15 (485 CE, Hermopolis): πρὸς | ¹³ χερ̣[ικ]ὴν ἀμπε[λ]ουργ̣ικὴν ἐργασίαν καὶ πᾶσ̣α̣ν̣ ἐ̣[πι]μέ[λειαν] καὶ καλλιεργίαν | ¹⁴ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ φ̣ιλοκαλί[α]ν̣ καὶ θρυοκοπίαν καὶ βαταν̣ολογί[α]ν̣ (l. βοτανολογί[α]ν) καὶ περίσκαψ{ε}ιν (l. ἄμεμ|¹⁵π̣[τον] (‘To undertake the manual work of vine-dressing and to demonstrate all care, proper cultivation, maintenance, cutting of rushes, weeding, (and) digging all round, irreproachably’).

[Type4] occurs in 44 documents, almost all from the Arsinoite nome, with some concentration in the villages of Philadelphia, Karanis, and Tebtynis. The clause most frequently adopts the form of the ‘sphere of liability formula’ (30 certain attestations): cf., e.g., P.Kron. 10.18–20 (116 CE, Tebtynis): τῶν δὲ ἔργων | ¹⁹ [γεωργικῶν] καὶ τελεσμάτων πάντων πρὸς τὸν | ²⁰ Κρονίω(να) (‘the agricultural works and all charges be incumbent on Kronion’). Alternatively (eight certain attestations), the lessee stands as the subject, followed by a verb of performance and the tasks in the accusative. This type more closely approximates Type1. Cf., e.g., P.Mich. V 311.17–19 (34, Talei): τοῦ δὲ μεμισθωκώτος (l. μεμισθωκότος) τοὺς | ¹⁸ πωτισμοὺς (l. ποτισμοὺς) καὶ χωματισ‹μοὺς› καὶ τὴν ἐπι|¹⁹μέλ‹ε›ιαν τῶν χλορῶν (l. χλωρῶν) πυουμενος (l. ποιουμένου) (‘… but the lessor maintaining the irrigation channels and dykes and assuming the oversight of the green crops’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 242). The first type exhibits a regional and chronological focus, stemming primarily from second-century CE Arsinoites. The second type is more regionally and chronologically dispersed and is still attested in the fifth century CE.

Among the ca. 150 terms for duties, as many as 40 are particular to vineyards: ἀγκαλισμός καὶ δέσις (‘making into bundles and binding’), ἀμμηγία (‘removal of sand’), ἀνάλημψις (‘removal of shoots’), ἀνώρυξις (‘digging up’), ἀπωρυγισμός (‘planting vinestems’), ἀρδεία (‘irrigation’), βλαστολογία (‘picking off shoots’), βοτανισμός (‘continued weeding’), γύρωσις ) ‘hoeing round the vines’), διάστασις (‘disposing’), διτομή (‘digging up’), ἐκβολή ἐκτὸς πλαστῶν (‘throwing outside the mud walls’), ἐπάρδευσις (‘watering’), καλαμοστασία (‘fixing vine-poles’), καλαμουργία (‘setting up poles for vines’), καλλιεργία (‘good cultivation’), κατασπασμός (‘plucking, gathering’), κλαδοτομεῖν (‘pruning’), κομπασία (‘ringing’), κοπρηγία (‘conveyance of dung’), ξυλοτομία (‘woodcutting’), ὀχεία (‘fertilization’) παραγραφή (‘trenching round’), παραφυλακή (‘safeguarding’), περίσκαψις (‘digging all round’), προστασία (‘management’), προσφορά (‘transporting’), ῥύσις (‘yield’), σάρωσις φύλλων (‘sweeping away leaves’), σκαλμός (‘breaking up the ground’), σκάφη and σκαφητός (‘digging’), σκορπισμός (‘spreading of manure’), συλλογή καὶ μεταφορά (‘collection and transportation’), τήρητρα (‘guarding’), τιλμὸς καλάμου (‘plucking of reeds’), τομή (‘cutting’), φιλοκαλία (‘care’), φραγμός (‘fencing in’), φυλλολογία (‘thinning of foliage’), χωφορία (‘loading earth’), with seven focusing on other types of groves and orchards.

In some cases, the term used is very rare on papyrus and entirely absent elsewhere. In the context of the early Roman documentation, these terms are integrated into the structure of the obligations clause; the structure is presented above. Such an integration is undertaken in P.Oxy. XIV 1631.5–14 (290 CE, Oxyrhynchos) a document focusing in its entirety on reporting the lessee’s obligations: ἐπι]δ̣ε̣χ̣ό̣μεθα μισθώσασθαι \ἐφʼ ἑνιαυτὸν ἕνα/ ⟦ Traces ⟧ ἔτι ἀπὸ α Ἁθὺρ τοῦ | ⁶ ἐνεσ[τῶτος ἕκτου ἔτους(?)] τ̣ὰ ἀμπελουργ[ι]κὰ ἔργα πάντα το[ῦ] ὑπάρχοντός σοι περὶ κώμην Τανάειν | ⁷ ἀμπε[λικοῦ κτήματος κα]ὶ τῆς πρ[ο]σ[ούσ]η̣ς̣ [καλ]αμείας ὅσ[ο]υ ἕκαστ[ό]ν ἐστιν ἀρουρηδοῦ, ἡμεῖς μὲν οἱ πε|⁸ρὶ τὸν [Αὐρήλιον Κτιστὸν] κατὰ τὸ ἥμ[ισυ], ἐγὼ δὲ ὁ Πελώϊος κατὰ τὸ λοιπὸν ἥμισυ, ἅπερ ἔργα ἐστὶν | ⁹ τῆς ἀ[μπέλου τ]ι̣λμὸ̣ς καλάμου, συλλο̣[γὴ] καὶ μεταφ[ο]ρὰ τούτου, ξυλοτομία δικαία, ἀνκαλισμὸς καὶ δέσις | ¹⁰ ἀγ̣κ̣α̣[λῶν καὶ πρ(?)]ο̣σφ[ορὰ] φύλλων καὶ ἐκ̣βολὴ ἐκτὸ̣[ς] πλαστῶν, ἀπωρυγισμὸς ὅσων δεῖ ἀπωρύγων, σκαφη|¹¹τ̣ὸ̣ς, γ̣[ύ]ρ̣[ω]σ̣ις κ̣[αὶ π]αρα[γρ]α̣φή, τῆς δὲ καλ[α]μουργίας οὔσης πρὸς σὲ τὸν γεοῦχον, τῆς δὲ ταύτης ὑπουργίας | ¹² οὔσης πρ[ὸ]ς ἡμᾶς, τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ἔργω[ν] μετὰ τὰ προκείμενα ὄντων πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἅπερ ἐστὶν σκαλ|¹³μός, βλαστολογία, Φαρμουθιακὴ ἐργασία̣, διάστασις, ἀνάλημψις, φυλλολογίαι αἱ ἐνχρῄζουσαι, τῶν δὲ | ¹⁴ καλαμ̣ί̣ων διτομὴ̣ καλαμίου ἑκατέρου, ἐπάρδευσις καὶ βοτανισμὸς διηνεκής (‘We willingly agree to lease for one additional year from Hathyr of the current 6^th year all the viticultural labour of the vineyard land owned by you near the village of Tanais, and the adjoining reed-plantation, of however many arourae there may be, we associates of Aurelios Ktistos, undertaking half and I, Peloios, the remaining half. The tasks of the vineyard include: cutting the reeds; collecting and transporting them; proper pruning; tying (the cuttings) into bundles and binding (them); stripping and transport of leaves and throwing them outside the mud walls; layering as many vine-shoots as are necessary; digging and loosening (the soil around the vines) and trenching’) (transl.: Kloppenborg (2006): 539–541). The term ἔργα is qualified by the adjective ἀμπελουργικός. It is then followed by a relative clause, in which the individual duties are recorded (ἅπερ ἔργα ἐστίν). The work consists of disposing of the reeds and leaves and planting the vines. The author moves on to record some general duties of the lessor (καλαμουργία) and lessee (ὑπουργία, τὰ λοιπὰ ἔργα) alike. τὰ λοιπὰ ἔργα then introduces another relative clause that describes the remaining duties in the nominative.

Bibl.: Schnebel (1925): 61-62, 120, 259; Taubenschlag (1955): 360; Herrmann (1958): 125-128; Hennig (1972): passim; Rowlandson (1996): 214. Müller (1985): 246-248.

BGU I 39.18-19 (186, ArsN) [1]; 197.16-19 (17, Dionysias) [1]; 227.20-22 (151, ArsN) [1]; 237.14-16 (164/5, ArsN) [1]; 308.7-10 (IV-VII, ArsN) [1]; 349.9-10 (313, ArsN) [4]; II 393.17-18 (167, Dionysias) [kopros]; 526.17-19 (86, SokN) [1]; 538.14-17 (100, Nilopolis) [1]; 586.17-23 (324, ArsPol) [1]; 604.22-25 (167/8, ArsN); 633.12-15 (221, ArsN) [1]; 636.15-19 (20, Kar) [3]; 661.10-17 (140, ArsN) [1a]; 644.28-35 (69, SokN) [1]; 661.10-17 (140, ArsN) [1]; III 840.1-2 (VI/VII, ArsN) [2]; 912.19-22 (33, SokN) [4]; 918.13-18 (110/1, ArsN) [1]; 920.22-26 (212, Phil) [4]; IV 1067.13-16 (101/2, Euh) [1v]; 1116.11-15 (13^A, Alex) [4]; 1118.17-22 (22^A, Alex) [1]; 1119.18-25 (6/5^A, Alex) [1]; 1120.26-35 (5^A, Alex) [1]; 1121.15-22, 22-24, 24-26 (5^A, Alex) [4a]; VI 1223.5-13 (II^A/1^A, MemphN) [1]; VII 1644.?-19 (294?, Phil) [1]; XI 2033.17-19 (before 94, Herakleia) [4]; 2123.17-20 (85, ArsN) [1]; 2124.1-3 (138-161 or 169-176, ArsN) [1]; 2127.12-16 (156, MemphN) [2]; XII 2172.17-19 (498?, Herm) [3]; 2175.5 (VI/VII, Herm) [1v]; XIII 2333.13-18 (142/3, PtolEu) [1v]; 2340.9 (III^e, Ox) [2]; XV 2484.7-8 (II, ArsN) [1]; XVII 2682.26-28 (481, Herm) [1]; 2696^..17-25 (616, Herm) [2]; XIX 2810.?-23 (559/60, Herm); 2825.2-4 (VI, HermN); CPR I 31.18-26 (153, ArsN) [1]; 47.6-7 (II/III, HerakN/ArsN) [4]; 240.23-27 (126, SokN) [1]; 244.9-11 (II/III, ArsN) [1]; XVIII 7.136-138 (231^A/207^A, Theog) [1v]; 11.219-220 (231^A/206^A, Theog) [1v]; 15.311-314 (231/206^A, Theog); P.Aberd. 183.8-9 (III, ArsN) [1]; P.Amh. II 90.13-16 (159, ArsN) [1]; 91.10-17 (159, PtolEu/Euh) [1]; P.Amst. I 32.1-3 passim (II/III, ArsN) [1]; P.Ant. II 89.10-15 ? (IV^e, Antin); 105.5-8 (VI, UP) [3]; P.Apoll. 57.1 (VII^l, Apol) [2]; P.Athen. 14.16-20 (22, Phil) [1]; 19.17-19 (153, ArsN) [1]; P.Berl.Cohen 19.12 (VI, Terythis) [2]; P.Berl.Leihg. I 19.25-27 (221/2 or 225/6, Kerkesephis) [1]; 23.10-16 (252, Thead) [1v]; P.Bour. 17.17-18 (220, Herakleia) [1]; P.Cair.Isid. 98.12-15 (291, Kar) [1]; 99.15-19 (297, Kar) [1]; 100.10-13 (297, Kar) [1]; 101.4-7 (300, ArsN) [1]; 102.16-20 (303/4, ArsN) [1]; 103.11-17 (313, Kar) [1]; P.Cair.Masp. I 67104.9-10, 12-13 (530, Aphr) [1v] [2]; 67105.21 (532, Aphr) [2]; 67106.15-16 (539, Aphr) [2]; 67107.11-13 (525/540, Aphr) [2]; 67109.32-35 (565, Aphr) [2]; 67110.38-39 (565, Aphr) [3]; 67112.14-16 (544/5, Aphr) [2]; 67113.10-11 (525/6?, Aphr) [2]; 67128.18-20 (547, Aphr) [2]; II 67170.24-31 (54, Zmin) [2]; 67240.4 (VI, UP) [2]; III 67300.9-11 (527, Aphr) [2]; 67301.20-23 (530, Aphr) [2]; P.Cair.Preis. 41.20?-22? (IV^f, HermN?); P.Col. IV 79.6-14,15-18 (256^A-248^A, Phil) [1v]; VII 179.17-23 (300, Kar) [1]; X 260.15-17 (149/50?, ArsN) [1]; 273^r.6-7, 8-9, 18-19 (204, Ox) [4]; 280.10-13 (269/70 or 276/7, Ox?) [1v]; 284.7-8. 8-10, 10-12, 13, 17-18 (311, Ox); P.Coll.Youtie I 27.22-25 (165, Teb) [1]; II 70.14-15 (272/3 or 278/9, Ox) [2]; 89.18 (485, Herm) [1v]; P.Corn. 10.21-22 (119 , Phil) [4]; 11.19-20 (204/5 or 233/4, Phil) [4]; P.CtYBR inv. 691.21-27 (547, Aphr) [1]; P.Daris 25.2-4 (I^l/II^e, UP) [2]; 29 (IV^m, OxN) [2]; P.Diog. 26.5-7, 8-11 (159, Phil) [1v]; 29.17-20 (225, Phil) [4]; 33.15-19? (204, Phil) [4]; P.Erl. 75.15-17 (535, Ox); P.Fam.Tebt. 28.14-16 (133, ArsN) [4]; 44.6-7 (189 KerkArs Orous) [1]; 45.1-2 (190, Kerkesoucha Orous) [1]; 47.12-16 (195, PtolEu) [1]; P.Fay. 307.5-7 (132, Philoteris) [1]; P.Flor. I 16.16-19 (239, Euh) [1]; 19.14 (248, PtolEu) [1]; 20.23-25 (127, Thead) [4]; 24.8-9 l. 9 (III^m, PtolEu) [3]; 41.11,12 (140, HermN) [3]; III 279.11-13 (514, Aphr) [2]; 281.13-14 (517, Aphr) [2]; 282.15-20, 20-26 (abrocheia) (520, Aphr) [2]; 283.15 (536, Aphr) [2]; 286.20-21 (552, Aphr) [2]; 299.1 (VI, Herm); 315.13 (435, Sesiy) [2]; 369.1-9 (139/149, Herm) [1v]; 370.13-17 (132, HermN) [2]; 383.3.78-80 (234, Antin); 384.23-31, 68-73 (489?, Herm) [1v] [4]; P.Fouad I 40.15-18 (35, Teb) [3]; P.Freib. III 21.10 (178^A, Phil); 35.9-10 (177/6^A, Phil); P.Gen. I 34.2-3 (156, Phil); 78.22-24, 26-29 (II/III, PtolEu) [4] [1]; 188.13-15 (616, ArsPol/Bousiris); P.Giss. I 56.15-16, 19-21 (VI, HermN) [3] [1]; P.Grenf. I 54.14-17 (378, ArsN) [4]; 58.7-11 (c. 561, Herm) [2]; II 87.17-28 (602, Herm) [2]; P.Hamb. I 23.21-29 (569, Antin) [2]; 64.17-19 (103, Euh) [1]; 68.10-14, 21-25 (549/50 or 564/5, Aphr) [1] [2]; IV 239.2-7, 18-20 (III^mA, Tholt?) [1v]; 269.9-10 (III^l, ArsN) [1]; P.Harr. I 80.8-12 (249, OxN) [2]; 82.23-26 (345, Ox) [2]; P.Heid. V 352.13-16 (558, HermN); 353.1a-3 (VI, AntaiN) [2]; P.Herm. 59.3 (after 430?, AntaiN) [2]; P.Iand. III 26.23-26 (98, ArsN) [2]; P.Ifao I 1.15-16, 20-23 (27, Teb) [4] [1]; III 31.21-22 ? (73/4, Teb) [4]; P.Köln II 104.a.3-7 (VI, Aphr) [2]; III 145.9-10 (I^a, OxN) [1v]; XIV 579a.13-20 (III, Ox) [1]; P.Kron. 10.18-20 (116, Teb) [4]; 19.21-22 (145/6, Teb) [4]; 19a.12-13 (145, Teb) [4]; 34.8-10, 14-15, 26-29 (135, Teb) [3] [3] [1]; 41.23-26 (140, Teb) [1]; 46.19-21 (153, Teb) [1]; P.Laur. I 7.8-9 (VI, HermN) [1v]; III 72.13-15 (118-138, PtolEu) [1]; IV 163.17-24 (279, UP) [1]; P.Lips. I 118.20-21 (160/1, Ox) (?); P.Lond. I 113.3.5-6, 8-9 (sale of fodder) (VI, ArsN) [1] [4]; 113.4.14-20 (595, ArsPol) [1]; II 163.17-26, 33-34 (c. 88, Kar?) [1]; 168.9-12 (162, Psenharpsenesis); 216.17-21 (94, SokN) [1] [4]; 314.12-16 (149, SokN) [1]; III 858a.7 (153/4, HermN) [2]; 906.15? (128, Euh) [4]; 938.1 (225, Herm) [3]; 954.15 (260, Herm) [3]; 1003.10-11 (562, HermN) [2]; 1012.34-36 (633, Herm) [3]; 1023.24-25 (V, Herm) [3]; 1050. 3-8 (VI^l/V, Herm) [2]; V 1689.14-16 (527, Aphr) [2]; 1691.17-18 (532, Aphr) [2]; 1692a.15-17 (555, Aphr) [2]; 1692b.14-15 (556, Aphr) [2]; 1693.8 (523/4, Aphr) [2]; 1694.11-13 (516-532, Aphr) [2]; 1695.9-10 (530/1?, Aphr) [2]; 1696.a.17 (VI, Aphr) [2]; 1696.b.11-12 (VI^e, Aphr) [2]; 1697.10-11 (VI^e, Aphr) [2]; 1714.36-43 (579, Antin) [2]; 1841.15-18 (536, Aphr) [2]; P.Mert. I 10.15-18 (21, Phil) [1]; 17.11-13, 20-22 (158, Oasitou Epoikion) [2]; 49.3-4 (VII, UP) [2]; II 68.24-25 (136, Kerkeosiris) [1]; III 107.17-19 (II, ArsN) [1]; 108.12-15 (69-79, ArsN) [1]; P.Mich. III 184.13-15 (121, Bac) [1]; 185.14-19 (122, Bac) [1]; V 311.17-19 (34, Talei) [4]; 312.17-19 (34, Talei) [2]; IX 560.17 (46, Kar) [4]; 562.12-16 (119, Kar) [4]; 564.12-13 (150, Kar) [1]; 565.17-19 (215/6, Kar) [1]; XII 632.16-18 (26, Teb) [4]; 633.19-22 (c. 30, Teb) [1]; XIII 666.13-18 (615/631/646, Aphr) [2]; XVIII 788.22-23 (173, Ox); 791.13-15 (212/3, Phil) [4]; XXI 849.8-10 (I^end/II^b, Kar) [2]; P.Michael. 23.b.1-17 (296, OxN or, HermN); 24.23-24 (297, Teb) [1]; 42b.18-19 (c. 566, Aphr) [2]; 43.7 (526, Aphr) [2]; 46.11-13 (559, Aphr) [2]; 48.21-23 (572, Aphr) [2]; 60.8-9 (VI, Aphr) [2]; P.Mil. I 49.2-5, ll. 4-5 (I, ArsN) [1]; P.Mil.Vogl. II 63.26-28 (170, Teb) [1]; 65.11-13, 15-17, 21-22 (160-180, Teb) [3]; 67.4-5 (165, Teb) [1]; 78.14-15 (GA) (138/9, Teb) [4]; 104.17-23 (127, Teb) [1]; 106.22-25 (134, Teb) [1]; 107.6-9 (153/4, Teb) [1]; III 130.31-32 (165, Teb) [1]; 132.27-29 (165, Teb) [1]; 133.31-33 (165, Teb) [1]; 137.28-31 (165/6, Teb) [1]; 138.21-23 (169, Teb) [1]; 139.23-25 (169, Teb) [1]; 140.25-28 (176, Teb) [1]; 144.14-15 (166, Teb) [1]; 187.6-7 (II, Teb) [1]; IV 220.21-22 (132/3, Teb) [1]; 238.23-25 (143/4, Teb) [1]; 239.9-11 (156, Teb) [4]; 240.18-19 (118-138, Teb) [1]; 241.9 (II, Teb) [1]; VI 267.11-18 (125/6, Teb) [1]; 269.16-21 (124, Teb) [1]; 270.1-3 (129, Teb) [1]; 271.1-6 (141, Teb) [1]; 286.27-28 (139, Teb) [1]; 289.13-16 (II, Teb) [1]; 290.23-26 (II, Teb) [1]; 291.17-18 (II, Teb) [1]; 292.16-19 (II, Teb) [1]; 295.12-13 (II, Teb) [1]; P.Monts.Roca IV 81.1-3 (III, UP) [1]; P.Nekr. 5.8-9, 9-11 (241, Kysis) [3]; P.Oslo II 32.15-17 (1, Thead) [4]; 33.14-26 (29, Kar) [1]; 34.9-10 ? (188/9, Phil) [4]; III 135.19-21 (286-293, Ox) [2]; P.Oxf. 13.24-28 (154/5, Argeias/SokN) [1]; P.Oxy. II 277.4-6 (19^A, Ox) [2]; 280.16-17 (88/9, Ox) [3]; III 499.15-16 (121, Senepta/Ox) [2]; IV 729.1-5, 18 (138, Ox) (?) [1]; 730.10-11 (130, Senepta/Ox) [2]; 810 descriptum (134/5, Ox); VI 910.8-9 (197, Pakerke or Ox) [2]; IX 1207.15-17 (175/6, Ox) [1v]; X 1279.14-19 (139, Ox) [2]; XII 1502^v.7 (after 260, OxN) [2]; XIV 1628.10-13 (73^A, Ox) [2]; 1629.8-10 (44^A, Ox) [2]; 1631.8-18, 25-28, 30-31 (280, Ox) [1v]; 1632.12-14 (353, Ox) [2] XLI 2974.14-15 (162, Ox) [2]; XLIII 3122.6-13 (322, Posompes) [oath]; XLV 3250.23-24 (c. 63, Ox) (1v); 3254.18-21? (312/3, Ox); XLVI 3269.12-15 (III, Ox) [2]; 3270.18, 21-24 (309, Ox) [2]; XLVII 3354.7-19, 36-39 (c. 257, Nomou) [1]; XLIX 3484.21–30 (72/3, Ox) [1v]; 3489.11-12, 17-19 (72/3, Ox) [4]; L 3595.9-17 (243, Senepta) [2]; 3596.9-19, 28-30 (219-255, Ox) [2] [1v]; 3597.7-12, 28-30 (260, Ox) [2] [3]; LV 3802.13 (296, Ox) [2]; 3803.11-14 (411, Ox) [2]; LVII 3911.14, 22 (199, Pimpasi) [2] [3]; LX 4092.13 (355, Iseion Panga) [3]; LXIII 4383.11 (384, Ox) [3]; LXVII 4594.8 (228, Senao/Ox) [2]; LXXXII 5320.28-30 (227/8, Ox) [1v]; P.Palau Rib. 22.13-15 (VI, Aphr) [2]; P.Panop. 1.8-9 (298/9 PanopN) [1v]; 3.5-6 (310 PanopN) [1v]; 7.4-7 (c. 338/9 PanopN) [1]; P.Phil. 12.20-22 (150/1 or 173/4 , Phil) [4]; 13.15-18 (155, Phil) [4]; 15.12-15 (153/4, Phil) [1]; P.Prag. I 38.17 (95/6, Herakleia); III 245.16-18 (141/2, Aphrodites Berenikis Polis) [1]; P.Rein. II 100.11? (212/3?, AphrN); 108.7-8 (VI, Ox) [2]; P.Ross.Georg. II 19.25-36 (141, Ox) [1v]; III 33.16-17 (522, Aphr) [2]; 44.1-5 (VI, Antai/Aphr) [2]; P.Ryl. II 166.19-20, 23-26 (26, Euh) [1]; 322b^r.11-14 (II, Thead?) [1]; IV 582.6-13 (42^A, OxN); 583v.21-22, 25-28 (170^A, Phil) [1v]; 600.15-18 (8^A, ArsN) [1v]; 683.13-15 (244, Ox) [2]; P.Sakaon 61.16-24 (299, Thead) [unique]; 67.13-15 (321, Thead) [1]; 69.16-17 (331, Thead) [1]; 70.9-10 (338, Boubastos) [1]; 73.13-15 (328, Thead) [1]; P.Sarap. 47.16-17 (128, HermN); P.Soter. 1.25-36 (69, Thead) [1v, extended]; 2.16-19, 21-24 (71, Thead) [1v]; 3.18-25, 34-36 (89/90, Thead) [1] [1v]; 4.24-33 (87, Thead) [1]; 5.24-27 (94, Thead) [4]; P.Stras. IV 258.9-12 (II, ArsN) [1]; 267.17-22 (126-128, SokN) [1v]; V 358.3? (IV, UP) [2]; 387.7-9 (II, UP); 465.15-18 (230, Polydeukia) [1]; VI 507.8-9 (138, HermN); 535.10-14 (II, ArsN) [1]; 539.7-12?, 15-17? (290/1, Herm) [1]; 557.9-10, 14-15 (291, Herm) [3]; 571.14-20 (175, Phil) [1]; VII 673.3-5 (IV, ArsN) [1]; VIII 706.11-28 (122/3, PtolEu) [2]; 758.18-19 (VII^e, HermN); P.Tebt. I 105.18-25, 37-39 (103^A, Kerkeosiris) [1v]; 106.20-22 (101^A, PtolEu) [1]; II 375.14-23 (140, PtolEu) [3]; 377.12-16, 21-23 (210, Teb) [1]; 378.17-23 (265, Teb) [1]; III 815.8^r.2.1-14, l. 12 (223/2^A, Teb) [1v]; P.Vat.Aphrod. 1.17-19, 24-26 (598 ?, Aphr) [2]; P.Vind.Sal. 8.12-17, 30-31 (323, HermN) [1v] [3]; P.Vind.Sijp. 10.4-5 (V/VI, ArsN) [2]; 11.19-20 (453, Herm) [1v]; P.Vind.Tand. 28.22-23 (576/7, Herm) [2]; P.Vindob. G 13263 + 13376 + 14694.19-23 (498, Herm) [1v]; P.Warr. 11.16-17 (98, Kar) [4]; P.Wisc. I 7.13-16 (259/60, Ox) [2]; II 52.13-15 (32, Kar) [1]; P.Worp 37.18-19 (620/650/665, Herak) [1v]; P.Yale I 67.14-15 (31, Teb); PSI I 31.15-19 (163/4, ArsN) [4]; 33.20-23 (150/1 or 173/4 , Phil) [4]; 73.12-13 (III, Ox) [3]; IV 283.15-16 (550, Aphr) [2]; 296.18-21 (520, Herm); 316.19-20? (328, Ox) [4]; VII 772.9-11 (98-117, Ox) [2]; VIII 920^r.8 (VI, OxN) [3]; 931.19-20 (524, Aphr) [2]; 934.6-8 (VI, Aphr) [2]; IX 1029.7-8, 10-12 (52/3, OxN) [3]; 1070.10-15 (260/1 or 261/2, Ox) [3]; 1072.9-12,12-15 (III^m, Ox) [2]; 1078.13-14 (356, Lenonos) [2]; X 1124.22-23 (150, Teb) [1]; 1134.20-21 (91, Teb) [4]; 1144.11-17 (99?, Teb) [1v]; XIII 1338.7-11, 14-17 (299, Ox) [2] [1]; XV 1518.15-20 (34/5/6, Bac) [1]; PSI Congr. XX 7.14-15 (104, Kar) [1v]; SB I 4495.1-3 ? (IV-VII, ArsN); 4681.1-7 (VI/VII, ArsN); 4869.5-7 (IV-VII, ArsN) [2]; III 7188.11-19 (154^A, ArsN) [1 extended]; IV 7369.11-12, 21-22 (512, Herm) [2] [1v]; 7441.9-12 (230?, UP) [4]; 7474.5, 9-12 (c. 254/5, ArsN) [4] [2]; 7480.13-18 ? (VI/VII, Thebes) [1]; V 7665.11-12 (225, ArsN) [1]; 7814.9-11 (256, Ox) [2]; VI 9226.18-23 (II/III, SokN) [1]; 9269.13-19 (304 , PtolEu) [1]; 9293.14-17 (573, ArsPol) [2]; 9294 (621/2?, ArsN) [1a]; 9562.13-16 (214 , Phil) [1]; 9589.4-7 (VIL, ArsPol) [2]; VIII 9830.25-27 (84-96, ArsN) [1?]; 9907.15-16, 22-25 (388, Herm) [2] [4]; 9922.9-11 (159, Theog) [4]; X 10942.1-5 (4^A, OxN) [2]; 11024.13-16 (328, ArsN); 11047.24-27 (194/5 ?, Teb) [1]; XIV 11279.23-27 (44, Thead) [1]; 11281.6-10 (172, Ox) [2]; 11403b.11-12, 15 (232/3, OxN) [2]; 11431.6-7 (95/6?, Kerkeesis) [1]; 11603.14-17 (157-159, PtolEu) [1]; 11711.18-20 (332, Herm) [1v]; 11718.13-16 (141, Teb) [1]; 11720.20-22 (170, Teb) [1]; 11843.19-21 (95, Teb) [4]; 11855.20-26 (547?, Aphr) [2]; 11911.15-20 (224, ArsN) [2]; 12025.9-15 (III^l, Tholt) [2]; 12050.20-23 (498, Herm) [2]; XVI 12539.18-20 (26, Teb) [1]; 12569.8-25 (66-58^a or 55-51^A, Kerkesoucha Orous) [1]; 12693 (140/1, Ox) [2]; 12948 (448, HermN); 13004 (314, Thmouis) [2]; 13006.20-29 (144, ArsN) [1]; 13010.24-29 (144, ArsN) [1]; 13017.16-17 (24^A, SokN) [1]; XVIII 13582.11-15 (184, UP) [1]; 13850.22-23 (141?, ArsN) [1]; 13885.15-17 (547/562, ArsPol) [1]; 13997.1-3 (VII^e, ArsN) [2]; 13998.5-9 (VI/VII, Alexandrou Nesos) [2]; 14000.5-11 (VI/VII, ArsN) [3]; 14001.15-17 (486, ArsN) [1]; XX 14290.11-12 (III, Ox) [2]; 14416.7-9 (VI, HermN/AntinN/AphrN) [2]; 14464.9-12 (II, Ox) [2]; 14642.1-7 (III/IV, Ox); 14983.5-7 (220-260, OxN) [2]; XXII 15346.16-19 (88/9, Kar) [1v]; 15493.13 (435, Sesiy) [2]; 15729.17-20 (639, ArsPol) [2]; 15769.8-11, 13-14 (311, Ox) [1v]; XXIV 16128.3-4 (V, OxN); XXVI 16569.18-32 (62?, Euh) [1v]; SPP III 422.6-7 (VI/VII, ArsN) [2]; XX 21.16-18 (215, ArsN) [1]; 57.14-16 (263, Dionysias) [1]; 70.22-28 (261, ArsN) [4]; 126.10 (515, HermN); 131.9 (518, ArsN); 218.36-37 (VII^e?, HermN).

2. Sowing

Category: Duties

Link to Synallagma

Sowing is one of the fundamental duties of the lessee of arable land. It is mentioned in three formulaic contexts: (1) A clause regulating the provision of seeds. (2) A clause outlining the entire scope of the duties of the lessee. (3) A clause introducing the duty of sowing in particular, which is the focus of the present entry. A special sowing clause is recorded [Type1] in twelve documents from the third through the first century BCE mostly from the Arsinoite nome. The verb denoting sowing is κατασπείρω with the land as the object in the accusative. See, e.g., P.Col. III 54.16-18 (250 BCE, Arsinoites): κατασπει|¹⁷ράτωσαν δὲ Ἡγήσαρχος καὶ Θεόπομπος καὶ Νικόδημος ἧς ἐξειλήφασι γῆς τὰ μὲν | ¹⁸ δύο μέρη πυρῶι, τὸ δὲ τρίτον μέρος κριθῆι (‘Hegesarchos and Theopompos and Nikodemos are to sow two-thirds of the land which they have taken in wheat, the other third in barley’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 142). In another document, the duty to sow is linked to the supply of the seeds, which the lessee is also responsible for. The lessee’s duty to sow, supplying his own seeds, is explicitly stated in one Ptolemaic lease contract BGU XIV 2390.19-20 (160/59 BCE, Herakleopolites): κατασπειράτω δὲ Πολυήρατος τῆς τοῦ κλήρου γεωργία̣ς̣ τὸ ἐπιβάλλον | ²⁰ [ -ca.?- σπέρματα ἑαυ]τῶι παρ̣έχων ( ‘Let Polyeratos sow the share of the kleros which is entrusted to his cultivation [ – -] supplying his own grain’). In Oxyrhynchite lease contracts from the first century BCE to the fourth century CE [Type2], the clause is embedded into the creation clause, introduced by ὥστε with the infinitive aorist, preceding the account of the rent. The verbs used are, in the first century BCE πυροσπορέω (‘sow with wheat’) (Ptolemaic), σπείρω (‘sow’ of cereals) (Roman), ξυλαμάω (‘plant or sow, usu. of green crops or fodder’) (Ptolemaic and Roman). Cf., e.g., P.Oxy. XIV 1629.8-10 (44 BCE, Oxyrhynchos): ὥστε | ⁹ π[υρ]οσπορῆσαι μὲν εἰς τ[ὸ ἔ]νατον ἔτος τὸ ἥμισυ, | ¹⁰ τὸ δʼ ἄλλο ἥμισυ ξυλαμ[ῆ]σ̣[α]ι̣ ἀράκωι (‘On the condition that (the lessee) shall sow half of it for the ninth year with wheat and cultivate the other half with aracus’). The clause is also recorded in one lease contract from the Byzantine period: P.Vind.Sijp. 10.15-16 (V/VI CE, Arsinoites), which also records the right of the lessee to collect the harvest for the maintenance of cattle.

Bibl.: Schnebel (1925): 132-137; Herrmann (1958): 125-126.

BGU I 311.14-17 (VII/VIII, Theog) [2]; IV 1017.7-13 (II/III, Ox) [2]; XIII 2340.9 (III^e, Ox) [2]; XIV 2390.7, 19-20 (160/59^A, HerakN) [1]; P.Col. III 54.16-18 (250^A, ArsN) [1]; P.Fouad I 43.21-27 (189/90, Phoboou) [1]; P.Freib. III 22.10-12 (178^A, Phil) [1]; 23.15 (178^A, Phil) [1]; 24.9-10 (178^A, Phil) ? [1]; 25.11-12 (178^A, Phil) [1]; 34.13-16 (173^A, Phil) [1]; 35.10-11, 15-19 (before 177/6^A, Phil) [1]; P.Harr. II 224.11-21 (II^l/III^e, Ox) [2]; P.Köln XIV 579a.23-24 (III, Ars); P.Lips. I 118.9-16 (160/1, Ox) [2]; P.Mert. I 17.11-13 (158, Oasiton Epoikion) [2]; P.Michael. 13.6-9, 13-14, 15-16, 18 (159/60, HermN) [2]; P.Monts.Roca IV 77.7-8, 29-30 (148^A, Hephaistias) [1]; P.Oxy. II 280.11-16 (88/9, Ox) [2]; IV 730.10-11 (130, Senepta/Ox) [2]; VI 910.8-9 (197, Pakerke/Ox) [2]; X 1279.14-19 (139, Ox) [2]; XIV 1628.10-13 (73^A, Ox) [2]; 1629.8-10 (44^A, Ox) [2]; 1686.8-12 (165/6, Ox) [2]; 1687.16-18, 23 (184/5, Ox) [2]; XX 2284. b.1-7 (258, Ox) [2]; XXII 2351.14-16 (112, Ox) [2]; XXXI 2584.11-12 (211, Ox) [2]; XXXIII 2676.11-14 (151, Ox) [2]; XXXVI 2776.14-15 (118/9, Ox) [2]; 2795.11 (250, Ox) [2]; XXXVIII 2874.10-12 (108, Ox) [2]; XLI 2974.14-15 (162, Ox) [2]; XLIX 3488.11-12, 14-19 (70/1, Ox) [2]; 3489.11-12, 17-19 (72/3, Ox) [2]; L 3589.5-7 (II, OxN) [2]; 3591.14-16 (219, Ox) [2]; 3592.11-12 (218-261, Ox) [2]; LV 3800.11-14 (219, Ox) [2]; 3802.13 (296, Ox) [2]; LVII 3911.14 (199, Pimpasi) [2]; LXVII 4594.8 (228, Senao/Ox) [2]; 4595.14-16 (261, Ox) [2]; LXIX 4739.7-9 (127, Ox) [2]; 4745.10-13, 15-16 (202, Ox) [2]; 4747.10-11 (296, Ox) [2]; LXXI 4827.11-13, 15-17 (173/4, Ox) [2]; P.Oxy.Hels. 41.13-15 (223/4, Ox) [2]; P.Pintaudi 34.14-15 (after 235, ArsN) [1]; P.Ryl. IV 683.13-15 (244, Ox) [2]; P.Tebt. II 376.19-24 (162, Teb) [1]; III.1 815 8^r.2.1-14, ll. 10-13 (223/2^A, Teb) [1]; 819.6-7 (171^A, Oxyrhyncha) [1]; P.Trier I 12.19 (179^A, Herak); P.Vind.Sijp. 10.15-16 (V/VI, ArsN); P.Wisc. I 7.13-16 (259/60, Ox) [2]; P.Yale I 51.20-21 (184^A, Kerkesoucha); PSI I VII 772.9-11 (98-117, Ox) [2]; IX 1029.7-8, 10-12 (52/3, OxN) [3]; 1070.10-15 (260/1 or 261/2, Ox) [3]; SB X 10216.10 (III/IV, Ox) [2]; 10263.8?-10 (204, Ox); XII 10780.14-17 (172/3, Ox) [2]; XIV 11281.6-10 (172, Ox) [2]; 11604.8-9 (III, OxN) [2];12025.9-15 (III^l, Tholt) [2]; XVI 12373.13 (158^A, ArsN) [1]; 12693 (140/1, Ox) [2]; XVIII 13385.14-16 (547/562, ArsPol); XX 14290.11-12 (III, Ox) [2]; 14464.9-12 (II, Ox) [2]; 14983.5-7 (220-260, OxN) [2]; XXIV 15959.6-7 (VI^f, Aphr).

3. Failed Sowing

Category: Contractual Duties, Penalty

Link to Synallagma

This clause deals with the event that the lessee fails to sow the land as stipulated in the contract. It is best attested in source material from the Ptolemaic period (e.g., P.Monts.Roca IV 77.30–31 (148 BCE, Hephaistias): ἐὰν δὲ̣ μὴ κατασπ̣ε̣ί̣ρ̣[ηι τὴν γῆν ἢ σ]πείρας λίπηι [τὴν μίσθωσιν], πλήρη τὰ [ἐ]κ̣φ̣ό̣[ρ]ι̣α̣ ἀπ[ο]|τεισάτωι (‘If he does not sow the land or, having sown it, leaves the rent, let him pay as a compensation the rent in its entirety’ (transl.; editio princeps, p. 231).

Bibl.: Herrmann (1958): 148; Hennig (1967): 73; Kramer – Sánchez-Moreno Ellart (2017): 235.

BGU XIV 2389.26-28 (scr.ext.) (72^A, HerakN); 2390.20-21 (160/59^A, HerakN); P.Freib. III 24.10-11 (178^A, Phil); 25.13-14 (178^A, Phil); 34.13-16 (173^A, Phil); P.Monts.Roca IV 77.8 (scr.int.), 30-31 (scr.ext.) (148^A, Hephaistias); P.Trier I 12.20-21 (179^A, Herak); P.Yale I 51.19-21 (184^A, Kerkesoucha); PSI VII 788.19-22 (125, Herm); SB XXIV 15959.7 (VI^f, Aphr).

4. Keeping the Land Fallow

Category: Contractual Duties

Link to Synallagma

9. Maintenance of Dykes

Category: Contractual Duties

Link to Synallagma

The duty of maintaining dykes is frequently treated in lease contracts in the clause that spells out the other duties, e.g., P.Stras. VI 571.14-16 (175 CE, Philadelphia): καὶ ἐ̣[πι]τελέσω τὰ τῶν ἀρο̣[υρῶ]ν̣ | ¹⁵ [ἔργα π]ά̣ντα τοὺ̣[ς τ]ῶν ἐδαφῶν χωματισμ̣οὺ̣ς ποτ̣ισ̣μ̣ο̣ὺς | ¹⁶ [ὑποσχισ]μ̣ούς (‘… and I will perform all the chores, the embankment of the land, irrigation and breaking up the ground’). Occasionally, however, it is addressed independently. Here we note four groups. [Type1] is attested in the genitive absolute construction, the subject being the ἐργασία, or ἀπεργασία (‘finishing off’), sometimes together with ὑδροφυλακία (‘guarding of dykes’), with the dykes serving as modifier: the ἀναβολή (‘casting up’); χωματισμός (‘construction of dykes’), or the χώματα (‘dykes’) themselves. The responsibility may be incumbent upon the lessor or the lessee (see list below). See, e.g., PSI IV 315.22-27 (136/7 CE, Oxyrhynchos), where the duty of maintaining the dykes is embedded in a broader context: καὶ ἀπεργασίας χω|²³μάτων τ̣ῶν προκειμένων ἐδαφῶν ὄντων | ²⁴ πρὸς τὸν μεμισθωμένον, ὃς ὁμολογεῖ αὐτό|²⁵θεν παρειληφέναι τὰ χώματα ἐστεγνωμένα, | ²⁶ ἃ καὶ παραδώσει τῷ ἐσχάτῳ ἐνιαυτῷ ὡς παρείλη|²⁷[φεν -ca.?- ]ησγη ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ (‘Let the maintenance of the dykes of the aforesaid lands be incumbent upon the lessee, who acknowledges that he has received on the spot the dykes watertight, which he will return in the last year in the same condition as he has received them’). [Type2]: the duty of the lessee to undertake embankment is stated in an independent clause, e.g., P.Oxy. IV 729.7 (138 CE, Oxyrhynchos): τὴν δ̣ὲ ἀν[α]βολὴν ποιήσονται ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθίμων ἀναβολῶν (‘They will perform the embankment of dykes following the procedure routinely employed in such work in the past’). [Type3]: a future grant, from the lessor to the lessee, for the embankment work. Cf., P.Ryl. II 171.15–16 (55/6 CE, Herakleia): ἐφʼ ὧι λαβὼν εἰς κατεργασίαν καὶ χωματισ[μοὺς τῶν ἐδα]|φῶν ἑκάστης ἀρούρης ἀργυρίου δραχμ[ὰς (‘On the condition that after receiving for the purpose of tillage and the embankment of the land a grant of . . . silver drachmae’). [Type3a]: confirmation of receipt of payment at the time of the lease: ̣BGU VII 1645.14-17 (245 CE, Philadelphia): ἐντεῦθεν δὲ | ¹⁵ [- ca.9 -] ̣ά̣τ̣ω̣ ̣ ̣ Αὐρήλ(ιος) Σαραπίων ὑπὲρ ἔργων | ¹⁶ [χω(ματικῶν) ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ καὶ] δημοσίων πάντων σιτικῶν τε | ¹⁷[καὶ ἀργυρικ]ῶν ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς ἑκατόν (‘And I, Aurelios Sarapion, have received forthwith on account of the embankment work …’). Finally, [Type4] expresses the duty of the lessee to deliver the dykes watertight when the period of lease is over, e.g., P.Col. X 280.19 (269/70 or 276/7 CE, Oxyrhynchos): καὶ ὁμ]ο̣ίως παραδότω̣[σαν ἐν τῷ ἐσχάτ]ῳ ἐνιαυτῷ τὰ χώ̣[ματα πάντ]α̣ ἐστεγνωμέν̣α ἐν̣ τῇ τριακάδι τοῦ Φαῶφι (‘… likewise, they shall return all the embankments watertight in the final year on the 30^th day of Phaophi’).

Bibl.: Waszyński (1905): 118-119; Bonneau (1993): 123-127; Freu (2022): 94-96.

BGU II 519.15-17 (IV, Phil) [1: lessor]; VII 1645.14-17 (245, Phil) [3a]; P.Col. X 280.19 (269/70 or 276/7, Ox) [4]; P.Harr. I 80.25-27 (249, OxN) [1: lessee]; P.Herm. 57.9-10 (IV, UP) [1: lessor]; P.Mich. V 315.26-28 (39-41 or 43-45, ArsN) [4]; P.Oslo II 32.15-17 (1, Thead) [1: lessor]; P.Oxy. IV 729.7-10 (138, Ox) [2]; XLIX 3488.27-30 (70/1, Ox) [1: lessee]; L 3589.10-11 (II, OxN) [1: lessee]; P.Panop. 9.4-5 (339, PanopN) [2]; P.Ross.Georg. II 19.39-40 (141, Ox) [2]; P.Ryl. II 171.15-16 (55/6, Herakleia) [3]: P.Sakaon 69.17-19 (331, Thead) [2]; 70.10-12 (338, Boubastos) [2]; P.Stras. VII 673.7-8 (IV, ArsN) [1: lessee]; P.Yale I 67.13-14 (31, Teb) [2 GA]; PSI IV 315.22-27 (136/7, Ox) [1: lessee]; SB XVIII 13850.21-22 (141?, ArsN) [2].

Category: Prohibition

Link to Synallagma

This clause is very rarely used—no more than two cases within a very narrow timeframe of five years: P.Amh. II 92.18–20 (162/3 CE, Soknopaiou Nesos) and P.Bodl. I 34.24–26 (158/9 CE, Arsinoites): οὐχ ἕξω δὲ κοινωνὸν οὐδὲ μίσθιον γενόμενον τῆς ὠνῆς ὑποτελῆν (‘And I will not have partner or sublessee who is a subject to dues’). The text is invoked in the context of an epidoche.

14. Breach by Employer

Category: Contractual Duties, Penalty

Link to Synallagma

The contract of labour P.Col. X 255.18-20 (131 CE, Theadelphia), records an agreement regarding the conveyance of dung and sebekh to a vineyard. Its owner is obligated to pay the salary, or the transportation charges, if he prevents the employee from performing the due conveyance: ἐὰν δὲ καὶ σύ με κολάσῃ (l. κοιλάνῃ or κωλύσῃς) ἀπολήμψομαι τὰ ναῦλα διὰ τὸ ἐπιει̣κῶ̣ς̣ (?) σ̣[υ]μ̣ώνους γεγονέναι (‘But if you cause me to be without work, I shall receive the freight charges because we agreed on reasonable terms (?)’ (transl.: P.Col. X, p. 31).

Bibl.: Delia (1986): 61-64; Hagedorn (1991): 243-245.

15. Construction Clause

Category: Contractual Duties

Link to Synallagma

The duty of rebuilding or repairing the object of the contract is attested in 35 documents, Roman and Byzantine, from the Arsinoite, Oxyrhynchite, and Hermopolite nomes, and in one case from Byzantine Edfu. Among them, 25 record leases, three labour, three sale, and four loans. The object is most commonly a building (16) or a factory, including equipment and machinery that are prone to deterioration and damage or require permanent maintenance. Accordingly, the list includes two cases of oil-presses, one water wheel, one mill, two granaries, three vineyards, and one palm grove. Stipulating construction may be the very object of the document, as in P.Oslo II 36.8–10 (145 CE, Theadelphia), which opens with the following clause: ὁμολογῶ ἐπά̣ναγκον ἀνοικοδομὴν | ⁷ ποιήσασθαι τῶν τοῦ δηλουμένου φοινι|⁸κῶνος πλαστῶν (‘I acknowledge that I will undertake the construction of mud walls of the aforesaid palm grove’). In most cases, however, the focus is different and the construction clause acquires an accessory position. This occurs especially when the clause is phrased as a genitive absolute, as is most frequently the case (see below). The most commonly used terms are ἐπισκευή (‘repair’), sometimes adnominally qualified by κατὰ μέρος (‘partial’) and ἀνοικοδομή (‘rebuild’) and potentially qualified by ἐκ καινῆς (‘anew’), the former denoting partial repair and the latter a complete rebuild of the object of the contract. Cf., in particular, P.Münch. III 90.4–6 (363 CE, Unknown Provenance): τῆς προσδεομένη[ς] ἀνυκοδομῆς (l. ἀνοικοδομῆς) ἢ καὶ | ⁵ [κ]ατὰ μέ̣[ρ]ος ἐπισκευῆς οὔσης πρὸς σὲ | ⁶ [τὸ]ν̣ μισθούμενον (‘And let the required rebuild or also the partial repair be incumbent on you, the lessee’). The object of repair stands in the genitive: ὐλή (‘yard’); ἐλαιουργεῖον (‘oil-press’); ἐνοίκισμα (‘dwelling’); κέλλα (‘cellar, room, chamber’); θησαυρός (‘granary’); λάκκος (‘pond’); μηχανή (‘machinery’); μηχανικά (‘water drawing machine (saqiyah)’); οἶκος (‘house’); ὄργανον (‘instrument’); προστάς (‘vestibule, porch, portico’); ὕδρευμα (‘watering-place, well, tank’). The term κατέαγμα is used once to denote complete demolition: P.Amh. II 93.18–21 (181. Soknopaiou Nesos): ἐὰν δέ τι{ς} ‹γένηται› | ¹⁹ ἐπισκεῦης ἢ ἀνοικοδομῆς \ἢ/ ⟦Traces⟧ καταιά|²⁰γματος (l. κατεάγματος) ξυλικῶν ἢ ἀργαλίων (l. ἐργαλίων) ὁμοίως ὄν|²¹των πρὸ‹ς› σὲ τὸν Στοτοῆτιν (‘If any type of repair or rebuilding or breakage of woodwork or tools occurs, you, Stotoetis, shall be responsible’) (transl.: editio princeps, p. 118). An especially detailed account of the objects of repair appears in SPP XXΙΙ 177.15–22 (136/7 CE, Soknopaiou Nesos): [τῆς πρ]οσδεηθείσης | ¹⁶ ἐπισκευῆς τῶν μηχαν[ῶν] καὶ τοῦ ὀργάνου | ¹⁷ ἀντὶ τῶν ἀποτριβησομένων ἢ καταχθησο|¹⁸μένων ‹τριβέων› ἢ καὶ ἀξόνων [ο]ὔσης π[ρ]ὸς τὸν κυρι[ακὸν] | ¹⁹ λόγον τῆς τῶν ξύλων χορ[ηγ]ήσεως τῶν δε (l. τε) | ²⁰ τεκτον[ι]κῶν μισθῶν ὄντων πρ[ὸ]ς ἐμὲ | ²¹ τὸν Ὧρον τοῦ καλουμένου τελέσματος | ²² [δ]ιπλώματος ὄ̣νων(?) ὄ[ντος] πρὸς ἐμὲ τὸν | ²³ [Ὧ]ρον (‘The owner shall bear the expense of necessary repairs to the machinery and press, replacing parts worn out or broken, and furnishing axles, while the lessee shall provide the necessary lumber and pay the wages of workmen’) (transl.: Johnson (1936) 367-368).

Bibl.: Husson (1983): 199; Müller (1985): 244-246.

BGU I 253.12-13 (244-248, PtolEu) [GA]; II 606.9-11 (306, PtolEu) [GA]; IV 1115.7-25, 38-51 (13^A, Alex) [GA]; 1116.11-12 (13^A, Alex) [GA]; 1156^v.22-25 (14/3^A, Alex); XI 2033.16-17 (94, Herakleia) [GA]; 2034.9-11 (II/III, PtolEu) [GA]; CPR I 244.14-16 (II/III, ArsN) [GA]; P.Amh. II 93.18-21 (181, SokN) [GA]; P.Berl.Leihg. I 23.11-13 (252, Thead) [GA]; P.Cair.Zen. III 59302.7 (250^A, Phil) [GA]; P.Flor. I 16.22-26 (239, Euh) [GA]; III 384.62 (489?, Herm); P.Fuad.Univ. 23.14-16 (283, Herm) [GA]; P.Gen. II 116.12-13 (247, Ox) [GA]; P.Harr. I 81.3-5 (VI, UP) [GA]; P.Köln II 104.b.7-8 (VI, Aphr); P.Lond. II 216.17-19 (94, SokN) [GA]; P.Mert. II 76.31-34 (181, Ox); III 108.16-18? (69-79, ArsN) [GA]; P.Mich. III 188.16-17 (120, Bac); V 312.32-34 (34, Talei); IX 570.15 (105/6, Kar); XI 605.14-16 (117, Bac); P.Mil.Vogl. II 53.18-20 (152/3, Teb) [GA]; P.Münch. III 90.4-6 (363, UP) [GA]; P.Oslo II 36.8-10 (145, Thead); P.Oxy.Hels. 41.23-26 (223/4, Ox) [GA]; P.Panop. 4.8-11 (314, PanopN) [GA]; P.Ross.Georg. II 19.19-21 (141, Ox); P.Soter. 3.27-30 (89/90, Thead) [GA]; P.Stras. VI 539.11 (290/1, Herm); P.Turner 37.17-19 (270, PtolEu); P.Vind.Sijp. 10.5-7 (V/VI, ArsN); P.Vind.Tand. 26.19 (143, SokN) [unique, in penalty clause]; PSI III 176.3-5 (V?, Ox); VII 787.18-19 (176/7?, ArsN); XII 1233.25-27 (323/4?, PanopN); SB I 5112.59-61 (618, Apol); VIII 9921.16-19 (III, Ox); XIV 11281.28-29 (172, Ox); XVI 13005.19-22 (144, ArsN) [GA]; SPP XXII 177.13-21 (136/7, SokN) [GA].

Link to Synallagma

In a single document, P.Lond. II 306.23-24 (145 CE, Arsinoites), an appointment of assistance by a praktor argyrikon, the appointed praktor is required to assist the employee, if needed. συνπρακτωρεύσ‹ε›ι δὲ [αὐ]τῷ ὁ Στοτ[οῆτι]ς, ὁπότε ἐὰν | ²⁴ [χρεί]α γένηται, διὰ τὸ ἐπὶ τούτ[οις τὴν] σύσ̣[τασιν] γ̣εγονέ̣ν[αι (‘And Stotoetis shall join in the work of collecting whenever there is need, because the appointment has been made on these terms’) (transl.: Sel.Pap. 2, p. 437).

Bibl.: Hagedorn (1984): 83.

Bibl.: Häge (1968): 75-80, 160-165; Beaucamp (1992): 83-86; Rupprecht (2002): 547; Yiftach (2003): 187-190.

BGU IV 1050.14-16 (12/1^A, Alex); 1051.18-20 (30^A-14, Alex); 1052.15-17 (13^A, Alex); 1098.21-23? (19^A-15^A, Alex); 1099.14-17 (30^A-14, Alex); 1100.20-24 (30^A-14, Alex); 1101.11-12 (13^A, Alex); CPR I 30.b.18-19 (VI/VII, Herak?); 237.8 (II, ArsN); 238.b.5-10 (II, ArsN); P.Cair.Masp. III 67310.11-14 (566-573, Antin); P.Col. VIII 227.10-12 (II^l/III^e, UP); P.Eleph. 1.8-9 (310^A, Eleph); P.Freib. III 30.20-21, 28-31 (179/8^A, Phil); P.Gen. I 21.4-7 (II, UP); P.Giss. 2.19-24 (173^A, Krok); P.Ifao III 5.6-7 (II, Ox); P.Mich. V 339.3 (46, Teb); 343.8 (54, Teb); P.Oxy. II 265.14-16 (81-96, Ox); 372.9-12 (74/5, Ox); III 497.2-3 (II^e, Ox); P.Ross.Georg. III 28.13-14 (343-358, ArsN); P.Tebt. I 104.18-23 (92^A, Kerkeosiris); III.2 974.4-8 (II^eA, Teb); SB VI 8986.24-26 (641, Apol); XII 11053.c, d (267^A, Tholt); XXIV 16072.10-13 (12^A, Alex).

31. Husband’s Misconduct

Category: Contractual Duties, Penalty

Link to Synallagma

The oldest marriage document from Egypt, P.Eleph. 1.10–13 (310 BCE, Elephantine) records the consequences of the husband’s failure to fulfill his marital duties. A detailed protasis records his apprehension and sequential incrimination before three men whom both parties approve. The subsequent apodosis stipulates the obligation to return the dowry and to pay a fine of 1,000 Alexandrian drachms. Unlike later documents, the verb denoting the return of the dowry is ἀποδίδωμι, which is routinely used for ‘regular’ payments, rather than for fines. Only the fine is introduced by a compound of τίνω, in this case, προσαποτίνω, which appears in the aorist imperative (προσαποτεισάτω): εἰὰν δέ τι ποῶν τούτων ἁλίσκηται Ἡρακλείδης καὶ ἐπιδείξηι Δημητρία ἐναντίον ἀνδρῶν τριῶν, οὓς ἂν δοκιμάζωσιν (or δοκιμάσωσιν) | ¹¹ ἀμφότεροι, ἀποδότω Ἡρακλείδης Δημητρίαι τὴμ φερνὴν ἣν προσηνέγκατο (δραχμῶν) Α, καὶ προσαποτεισάτω ἀργυρί|¹²ου Ἀλεξανδρείου (δραχμὰς) Α. ἡ δὲ πρᾶξις ἔστω καθάπερ ἐγ δίκης κατὰ νόμον τέλος ἐχούσης Δημητρίαι καὶ τοῖς μετὰ | ¹³ Δημητρίας πράσσουσιν ἔκ τε αὐτοῦ Ἡρακλείδου καὶ τῶν (or καὶ ἐκ τῶν) Ἡρακλείδου πάντων καὶ ἐγγαίων καὶ ναυτικῶν. (‘If Herakleides is convicted of doing any of these, and Demetria proves this before three men, whom they both sanction, let Herakleides return Demetria the dowry of 1,000 drachms, which she has brought into the joint house, and let him pay as indemnity 1,000 drachms of Alexander’s coins. And let the right execution be employed by Demetria and those acting with Demetria, as if resulting from a suit that has been brought to completion, against Herakleides himself, and all his assets, on land and sea alike’).

In later documents, the board of three men is absent, but the vocabulary remains closely aliegned with that of P.Eleph. 1. So P.Gen. 21.7–9 (II BCE, Unknown Provenance), in which the protasis relates not only to misconduct but also to his neglect of maintaining the wife, still introduces the procedure of the husband’s apprehension. In the apodosis, the imperative aorist of ἀποτίνω is now routinely used, with the dowry and the hemiolion as the object: ἐὰν δέ τι τούτων ἐπιδειχθῆι | ⁸ π̣οιῶν ἢ τὰ δέοντα ἢ τὸν ἱματισμὸν ἢ τὰ̓́λλα μὴ παρέχηι αὐτωι (l. αὐτῆι) καθὰ γέγραπται. ἀποτεισάτω Μενεκρά|⁹τ̣η̣ς Ἀρσινόηι παραχρῆμα τὴν φερνὴν ἡμιόλιον (‘If it is proven that he has done any of these, or did not provide his wife with the necessities, clothing or anything else, let Menekrates immediately pay Arsinoe the dowry increased by a half’). The Alexandrian marriage synchoreseis include the clause either with a protasis (ἐὰν δέ τι τούτων παραβαίνῃ, e.g., BGU IV 1100.25–31, 30 BCE – 14 CE, Alexandria), or as direct continuation following an account of the husband’s duties (‘Or else…’). In the apodosis, the composite verb ἐκτίνω, here always in the present tense, is followed by the adverb παραχρῆμα and the dowry (φερνή) as the object. The dowry is increased by half (ἡμιολία). The praxis clause is recorded in the genitive absolute with the wife (or her family members) in the dative. The husband, his sureties, and property are recorded in the genitive, introduced by ἐξ. Cf., e.g., BGU IV 1051.20-28 (30^A–14 Alexandria): ἢ ἐκτ[ί]|²¹νειν αὐτόν τε καὶ τὴν Διδύμην παρα|²²χρῆμα τὴν προκειμένην φερνὴν σὺν | ²³ ἡμιολίᾳ τῆς πράξεως γεινομένης | ²⁴ τῇ Λυκαίνῃ ἔκ τε αὐτοῦ Ἱέρακος καὶ | ²⁵ ἐκ τῆς ἐνγύου Διδύμης καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς οὗ | ²⁶ ἐὰν αὐτῶν αἱρῆται καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόν| ²⁷ των αὐτοῖς πάντων καθάπερ ἐγ δί|²⁸κης (‘Or else let him (scil. Hierax, the husband), and Didyme (his mother) immediately return the aforesaid dowry increased by a half, Lykaine having the right of execution from Hierax himself and from Didyme his surety, and from whomever of the two she chooses, and from all their property as if resulting from a court action’).

A clause prescribing sanctions for the misconduct of the husband is absent in marriage documents in the Roman period. It appears only in the Byzantine period, but with significantly altered vocabulary. The only concrete duty that the husband violates, and is specified in this clause, is that of casting out his wife. Other forms of misconduct are subsumed under kataphronesis, which functions here as an umbrella term, as in other types of ‘paramonic’ contracts. See, in particular, the phrase ποινὴ τῆς αὐτῆς καταφρονήσεως. Cf., e.g., P.Cair.Masp. III 67310^v.1–5 (566-573, Antin):☧ καὶ εἰ συμβαίη [μ]έ ποτε̣ κ̣[α]ιρῷ ἢ χρό̣ν̣ῳ̣ κατα̣φ[ρονῆσαί] σο̣\υ/ κατ̣ὰ τ̣ὸν π̣[ροα]φ̣η[γ]ηθ̣έ̣ν̣τα τρ[όπον], ἢ ἐκβα̣λ̣ε̣ῖ̣ν̣ [σ]ε̣ | ² [χωρὶς εὐλόγου αἰτίας ὡ]ς̣ προγέγραπ̣[ται], ἑ̣[το]ί̣[μως ἔχω πα]ρ̣[ασ]χ̣[εῖν τ]ῇ σῇ κ[οσμιότητι, λόγῳ ποιν]ῆ̣ς τῆς αὐτῆς κ̣α̣τ̣α̣φρ̣ο̣ν̣[(ήσεως)] | ³ [νομίσμ]α̣τ̣[α ιη] ἔργῳ ἀ̣π̣α̣ιτούμε̣ν̣α̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ κ̣α̣τ̣α̣[βαλλόμενα π]αρʼ ἐμο(ῦ) χωρὶς \ἀ̣[ντιλ]ο̣γ̣ίας κα̣ὶ̣ [ὑ\π/οθέσεως]/, [κρίσ]εως [καὶ δί]κ̣ης καὶ πάσης̣ ἀ̣φ̣ορ̣μ̣ῆς καὶ μ̣έμψεως | ⁴ κ̣[αὶ παν]τ̣ο̣ί̣α̣ς̣ νομίμου παραγ̣ρ[αφῆς ἀναμφιλόγως (‘If it happens that I show you contempt at any time whatsoever or on any occasion in the aforementioned manner, or cast you out without reasonable cause as aforesaid, I am prepared to pay you, on account of a penalty for your contempt, 18 solidi demanded with action and paid by me indisputably, without objection, delay, chance postponement, lawsuit, judgement, any excuse or any sort of legal demur’).

Bibl.: Berger (1911): 217-226 ; Beaucamp (1992): 85-87; Rupprecht (2002): 549; Yiftach (2003): 187-190.

BGU IV 1050.16-19 (12/1^A, Alex); 1051.20-28 (30^A-14, Alex); 1052.18-22 (13^A, Alex); 1098.27-32 (19^A-15^A, Alex); 1099.18-23 (30^A-14, Alex); 1100.25-31 (30^A-14, Alex); 1101.12-14 (13^A, Alex); P.Col. VIII 227.12-19 (II^l/III^e, UP); P.Eleph. 1.10-13 (310^A, Eleph); P.Freib. III 30.22-24 (179/8^A, Phil); P.Gen. I 21.7-9 (II, UP); P.Giss. 2.19-24 (173^A, Krok); P.Lond. V 1711 .42-49, 68 [with P.Cair.Masp. III 67310^v.1-5] (566-573, Antin); P.Tebt. I 104.18-23 (92^A, Kerkeosiris); III.2 974.8-9 (II^eA, Teb).

32. Wife’s due Conduct

Category: Contractual Duties

Link to Synallagma

The act of marriage elicits a type of paramone: the wife must remain with her husband, and he may not cast her out. In the Ptolemaic period, the duties of the wife are reported both positively, and negatively in two separate clauses. In P.Tebt. I 104 (92 BCE, Kerkeosiris), which may be considered paradigmatic, we read (ll. 13–15): [ἔ]στω δὲ | ¹⁴ Ἀπολλωνία{ι} π[α]ρὰ Φιλίσκωι πειθαρχοῦσα α[ὐ]τοῦ ὡς προσῆ[κό]ν ἐστιν | ¹⁵ γυναῖκα ἀνδρός, κυριεύουσα{ν} μετʼ αὐτοῦ κοινῇ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτοῖς (‘Apollonia shall remain with Philiskos, obeying him as a wife should her husband, owning their property in common with him’) (transl.: editio princeps, 452). The first part of the clause, in terms of content, closely resembles paramone contracts, stipulating the employee’s duty to remain with his employer and follow the employer’s instructions (παρεμένων καὶ ποιῶν τα προστασσόμενα κτλ.). However, the vocabulary of the labour contract is deliberatedly avoided, to maintain a clear distinction between marriage and a regular labour contract. Thus, ἔστω παρά + dat., πειθαρχοῦσα, and normal marital conduct as behavioral standards (ὡς προσῆ[κό]ν ἐστιν | ¹⁵ γυναῖκα ἀνδρός) are unique to this type of contract. Kυρ‹ι›εύουσα{ν} μετʼ αὐτοῦ κοινῇ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτοῖς is alien to labour contracts, of course. The vocabulary here is that accustomed in documents that grant title to an alienated asset (See, in particular, the capacity clause).

The paramonic background is also evident in the clause that regulates the wife’s conduct. In P.Tebt. I 104.27-31 (92 BCE, Kerkeosiris), we read: κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ μηδὲ Ἀπολλωνίαι ἐξέστω ἀπόκοιτον μη[δὲ] | ²⁸ ἀφήμερον \γίνεσθαι/ ἀπὸ τῆς Φιλίσκου οἰκίας ἄνευ τῆς Φιλίσκου γνώ[μ]ης μηδʼ ἄλλω[ι] | ²⁹ ἀνδρ[ὶ] συνεῖναι μηδὲ φθε[ί]ρειν τὸν κοινὸν οἶκον μηδὲ αἰσχύνεσ̣θ̣[αι] | ³⁰ Φιλίσκον ὅσα φέρει ἀνδρὶ αἰσχύνειν (‘In the same way it shall not be lawful for Apollonia to spend the night or day away from the house of Philiskos without Philiskos’ consent or to have intercourse with any man or to ruin the common household or to bring shame upon Philiskos in any way that causes a husband shame’). The wording μηδὲ ἀπόκοιτον μηδὲ ἀφήμερον γίνεσθαι is well attested, verbatim, in paramone contracts. Other formulations, ἄλλωι ἀνδρὶ συνεῖναι and φθείρειν τὸν κοινὸν οἶκον, correspond to those used in wet-nurse contracts, where the wet nurse is enjoined against engaging in sexual intercourse and against spoiling her milk. In the first case, however, the verb differs (ἀνδροκοιτέω rather than σύνειμι), while in the second, although the verb remains the same, the object differs entirely: γάλα instead of οἶκος. The verb αἰσχύνω is, on the other hand, confined to the marriage contract.

The Alexandrian synchoresis presents a different formulation. BGU IV 1101.14–17 (13 BCE, Alexandria): καὶ τὴν δὲ Διονυσί(αν) συντηρε(ῖν) τὰ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρ(α) καὶ τὸ(ν) | ¹⁵ κ̣[οινὸν] βίο(ν) δίκαια μήτε ἀπόκ(οιτον) μηδʼ ἀφήμερο(ν) γείνε(σθαι) ἀπὸ τῆ(ς) οἰκ(ίας) | ¹⁶ ἄνευ τῆς Ἀ̣μ̣μ̣ω̣(νίου) γνώ(μης) μηδὲ φθ(είρειν) μηδὲ καταβλ(άπτειν) τ̣ὸ̣ν̣ κοιν(ὸν) | ¹⁷ ο̣ἶ̣κ̣ο̣ν μηδ̣ʼ ἄλλ(ωι) ἀνδρὶ συνεῖναι (‘And Dionysia shall observe her duties toward her husband and toward the joint family, shall not stay out of Ammonios’ house by night or by day without Ammonios’ consent, shall not ruin or inflict damage on the joint family, and shall not become intimate with another man’). The key innovation is συντηρεῖν τὰ δίκαια, which conveys the same meaning as πειθαρχοῦσα κτλ. While documents from the Oxyrhynchite nome maintain continuity with their Ptolemaic counterparts, those originating in the Arsinoites prescribe the wife’s ’proper conduct’ without specifying her individual duties: P.Mil.Vogl. II 71.10 (172-175, Ptolemais Euergetis): αὐτῆς] δὲ τῆς Τεφορσάϊτος τῆς καὶ Ε[ὐδαιμονίδος ἄμεμπ]τον καὶ ἀκατηγόρητον ἑαυτὴν παρεχομένης ἐν τῇ συμβιώσει (‘Let Tephorsais conduct herself blamelessly and irreproachably in the course of the marriage’). The sixth-century documentation returns to the Ptolemaic level of detail but employs an entirely different vocabulary to do so. Cf., e.g., P.Cair.Masp. III 67310.14–19 (566-573 CE, Antinoopolis): μέντοι καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς σῆς κοσμιότητος ὑπακούσης μο(υ) | ¹⁵ κ̣[α]ὶ̣ φυλαττούσης μοι πᾶσαν εὔνοιαν καὶ ‹ε›ἰλικρινῆ στοργὴν ἐν πᾶσι καλοῖς καὶ ὠφελίμοις ἔργοις τε καὶ λόγοι̣ς̣, | ¹⁶ κ̣α̣[ὶ] ὑ̣[πο]τ̣αττομένης μοι τρόποις ἅπασιν ἅτε δὴ ἀνήκει ἁπάσαις εὐγενεστάται̣ς̣ γυναιξὶν ἐνδείκνυσθαι εἰς το̣ὺς | ¹⁷ ἑαυτῶν εὐμοίρου\ς/ καὶ φιλ\αι/[τά]τους ἄνδρα̣ς δί[χα ὕ]β̣ρ̣εως καὶ ἁ̣ψι̣κ̣ωρίας (l. ἁψικορίας) καὶ οἵας δήποτε καταφρον[ήσεως] | ¹⁸ ἀλλʼ οἰκουρὰ̣ν διόλου εἶναι, καὶ φίλανδρον περὶ ἐ̣μ̣ὲ γενέσθαι σε, ἀκολούθως τῇ παρʼ ἐμοῦ δειχθησομένῃ σ̣ο[ι] | ¹⁹ ἀγαθῇ καὶ σώφρον{ε}ι προαιρ[έσ]ει (‘And indeed your propriety showing obedience to me and maintaining toward me all goodwill and complete affection in all fine and beneficial deeds, being subject to me in all manners that are befitting for all noblest wives to display toward their fortunate and most beloved husbands without outrage, swift disdain, and contempt of any kind, but shall always keep the household and will remain favorably disposed toward me consequent upon my good and chaste devotion to you’).

Bibl.: Beaucamp (1992): 83-86; Rupprecht (2002): 548-549, 551; Yiftach (2003): 190-195.

BGU IV 1045.20-21 (154, Alabanthis?); 1050.19-23 (12/1^A, Alex); 1051.28-31 (30^a-14, Alex); 1052.22-29 (13^A, Alex); 1098.32-39 (19^A-15^A, Alex); 1100.31-35 (30^a-14, Alex); 1101.14-17 (13^A, Alex); CPR I 24.26-27 (136, PtolEu); 30.b.20-22 (VI/VII, Herak?); 237.4 (II, ArsN); 238.d (II, ArsN); P.Bon. 26.2-3 (I, UP); P.Cair.Masp. I 67006^v.137-142 (566-570, Antin?); III 67310.14-19 (566-573, Antin); 67340^v.14-19, 40-47 (VI, Antin); P.Freib. III 30.17-20 (179/8^A, Phil); P.Gen. I 21.9-12 (II^A, UP); P.Giss. 2.15-17 (173^A, Krok); P.Hamb. III 220.8-9 (223/4, PtolEu?); P.Horak 82.4-8 (30^A-14, Alex); P.Lond. II 294.18-19 (160, PtolEu); V 1711.34-42 (566-573, AntinN); P.Mil.Vogl. II 71.10 (172-175, Teb); P.Oxy. II 265.13 (81-96, Ox); 372.12-13 (74/5, Ox); III 497.3-4 (II^e, Ox); P.Stras. III 131.14-15 (363, ArsN); P.Tebt. I 104.13-15, 27-30 (92^A, Kerkeosiris); III.2 974.1-2, 9-10 (II^eA, Teb); PSI I 64.1-4, 18-22 (II^A/I^A, Ox); SB VI 8986.27-29 (641, Apol); XII 11053.e (267^a(?), Tholt?); XXIV 16072.13-16 (12^A, Alex); XXVIII 17050.6-7 (II, Teb).

33. Wife’s Misconduct

Category: Duties, Penalty

Link to Synallagma

Sanctions against misconduct on the part of the wife are introduced in the earliest marriage document, P.Eleph. 1.10-13 (310 BCE, Elephantine): the document does not contain an independent clause, recording the duties of the wife. Rather, they are reported in the present clause, in the protasis. Should she be apprehended acting fraudulently resulting in her husband’s shame (ἐπὶ αἰσχύνηι), she is to be deprived of everything that she has brought into the marriage. Appended is an account of the accusation procedure, which is identical to that found in the clause relating to the husband’s misconduct (ll. 6-8): εἰὰν δέ τι κακοτεχνοῦσα ἁλίσκηται ⟦ἁλίσκηται⟧ ἐπὶ αἰσχύνηι τοῦ ἀνδρὸς Ἡρακλείδου Δημητρία, | ⁷ στερέσθω ὧμ προσηνέγκατο πάντων. ἐπιδειξάτω δὲ Ἡρακλείδης ὅτι ἂν ἐγκαλῆι Δημητρίαι ἐναντίον ἀνδρῶν τριῶν, | ⁸ οὓς ἂν δοκιμάζωσιν ἀμφότεροι (…‘If Demetria is discovered doing any evil to the shame of her husband Herakleides, she is to be deprived of all that she brought, but Herakleides shall prove whatever he alleges against Demetria before three men whom they both approve’ (transl. Rowlandson (1998): no. 123). The clause is also recorded in Alexandrian marriage synchoreseis, where we find both texts with (BGU IV 1098.39: ed.: [ἐὰν] δέ τι τούτων ἐπιδειχθῇ ποιοῦσα), and without protasis (BGU IV 1051.32, below). The verb ἐπιδείκνυμι (‘show’, ‘prove’) is also used in the clause penalizing misconduct by the husband. In this case too, there are some echoes of the incrimination procedure of P.Eleph. 1, but it is hardly as institutionalized as there. Misconduct will result in the wife losing her dowry. Appended is the general penalty clause, subjecting both parties to prostimon for misconduct. BGU IV 1051.28-35 (30 BCE-14 CE, Alexandria): τὴν δε Λύκαιναν μήδʼ ἀφήμερον | ²⁹ γείνεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἄνευ τῆς | ³⁰ Ἱέρακος γνώμης μηδὲ φθείρειν τὸν | ³¹ οἶκον μήδʼ ἄλλῳ ἀνδρὶ συνεῖναι | ³² ἢ καὶ αὐτὴν τούτων τι διαπραξαμέν[ην] | ³³ κριθεῖσαν ⟦καὶ⟧τέρεσθαι (l. ‹σ›τέρεσθαι) τῆς φερνῆς χορὶς (l. χωρὶς) | ³⁴ τοῦ τὸν παραπαίνοντα (l. παραβαίνοντα) ἐνέχεσθαι τῷ | ³⁵ ὡρισμένῳ προστίμῳ (…..‘and (on the understanding that) Lykaina does not (sleep away or) be away for a day from Hierax’s house without Hierax’s approval, or damage the home, or be with another man, or (if she does), after being judged guilty of having done so, she is deprived of her dowry apart from that whoever violates the terms of the contract is subject to the prescribed penalty’). While the clause enumerating acts of misconduct by the wife is still incorporated in the chora in the late Ptolemaic period, the present clause is replaced by that introducing divorce on the wife’s initiative. In the Byzantine period, a clause treating the consequences of misconduct of the wife employs the same terminology (in particular the verb καταφρονέω) as that relating to misconduct on the part of the husband. Cf., e.g., P.Lond. V 1711.49-52 (566-573 CE, Antinoopolis): ἐνεχομένης | ⁵⁰ καὶ σοῦ τῆς προαφηγηθείσης μου νύμφης καὶ γαμετῆς Σχολαστ̣ι̣κ̣[ίας] | ⁵¹ τῷ αὐτῷ ἴσῳ μέντοι προστίμῳ εἰ καὶ ἐμοῦ κ[ατα]φρονέσα̣ι̣ς̣ (l. καταφρονήσαις) ἐπ̣ὶ̣ τ̣ο̣ῖ̣[ς] | ⁵² προτεταγμένοις σ̣υ̣[μ]φών̣οι̣[ς] ἐφʼ οἷς καὶ αμ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] (…‘you, my aforesaid bride and wife, Scholastikia, being subject to the same, equal penalty if you show contempt to me under the provisions recorded above’).

Bibl.: Berger (1911): 217-226; Beaucamp (1992): 85-87; Rupprecht (2002): 549; Yiftach (2003): 190-195.

BGU IV 1050.23-24 (12/1^A, Alex); 1051.32-33 (30^A-14, Alex); 1052.29-31 (13^A, Alex); 1098.39-40 (19-15^A, Alex); 1101.17-18 (13^A, Alex); IV 1463.1-4 (246^A, Eleph); P.Eleph. 1.10-13 (310^A, Eleph); P.Lond. V 1711.49-52 [with P.Cair.Masp. III 67310^v.4-5] (566-573, Antin).

Section VI. Violation of Duty

34. Breach of Terms of Contract (General)

Category: Duties, Penalty

Category: Contractual Duties, Compensation

Link to Synallagma

In P.Bas. I 2.10-12 (190 CE, Arsinoites?), four camel drivers are entrusted with the transportation of three male camels. The clause deals with the prospect of the death of some of the camels as they are being transported. ἐὰν δὲ | ¹¹ πτ̣α̣[ίσ]ῃ τι ἐξ [α]ὐτῶ[ν κατὰ τὴ]ν ὁδὸν, οἴσομεν ὑμ[ε]ῖ̣ν τὴν σφρα|¹²γεῖδα (l. σφρ[α]|γῖδα) καὶ οὐδὲν ζη[τηθήσ]εται πρὸ[ς] ἡμᾶς (‘Should one of them fall in the way, we will bring you his mark to you and no investigation will be conducted against us’).

39. Theft

Category: Penalty

Link to Synallagma

Before the Byzantine period, the act of theft is recorded in just three documents and is discussed in detail in only two: P.Mich. X 587.10–12 (24/5 CE, Tebtynis) and PSI X 1120.4 (Il/II^e CE, Unknown Provenance). In the former, theft is treated in an extensive clause that penalizes various types of misconduct: apospasis, apallagê, damage, and any other type of violation. The protasis discusses theft expressis verbis (νοσφιζ‹ομ›ενος | ἁλίσκηται̣ τῶν̣ [Ἁ]ρμιύσιος) as well as the retention of objects given to the employee for safekeeping (ἢ λα|βοῦσά τι φυλάσσ[ει]ν̣ μὴ παράσχηται σῶον). Taking as an exception the violent removal of the object (ἐὰν | μή τι μετὰ βίας̣ ἀ̣φαιρεθῆι), the document introduces in the apodosis a different penalty for ἀπόκλεμμα, νοσφισμός and withholding of an object given for safekeeping. The penalty for ἀπόκλεμμα is fivefold, for νοσφισμός 150% with regular interest, and for a withheld object its simple value as assessed by the employer/depositary: καὶ μὴ ἐξέστω{ι} αὐτῶι | ¹⁷ Παβελληοῦ ἐν̣[τ]ὸς τοῦ χρόνου ἀποσπάσαι τὴν θυ|¹⁸γατέρα{ν}, 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. καταβλάπτωσι) ἢ νοσφι‹σο›ζενος (l. νοσφιζ‹ομ›ένη) | ²¹ ἁλίσκηται̣ τῶν̣ [Ἁ]ρμιύσιος ἢ τῶν παρʼ αὐτοῦ, ἢ λα|²²βοῦσά τι φυλάσσ[ει]ν̣ μὴ παράσχηται σῶον, ἐὰν | ²³μή τι μετὰ βίας̣ ἀ̣φαιρεθῆι, ἀποτισάτω{ι} ‹ὁ› ὁμολογῶ(ν) | ²⁴Ἁρμιύσι παραχ[ρ]ῆ̣μα ἅς τʼ εἴληφεν παρʼ αὐτοῦ καθότι | ²⁵πρόκιται ἀργ(υρίου) [(δραχμὰς) τεσ]σαράκοντα ὀκτὼ{ι} μεθʼ ἡμιολίας | ²⁶καὶ 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. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ | ³¹ παραδῷ ἢ μὴ παράσχηται σῶον, τὴν ἀξίαν τὴν (κατὰ) | ³² τὴν ἐπι[γ]ν̣όμην (l. ἐπιγνώμην) Ἁρμιύσιος, οὔσης τῶι Ἁρμιύσει | ³³ τῆς πράξεως ἔκ τε τοῦ ὑποχ(ρέου) καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχ(όντων) καθά|³⁴περ ἐγ δίκης (‘… and it shall not be permissible for Pabelle’es to remove his daughter within the period, but if he does remove 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(?) or damaging or removing anything belonging to Harmiysis or his representatives, or does not restore in sound condition whatever she has received to guard, unless it is taken from her by force, the party of the first part shall pay forthwith to Harmiysis both the forty-eight drachmai of silver that he has received from him as aforesaid, increased by one-half and with the interest, and a fine of one hundred drachmai, and to the treasury, and the damages; and for each day on which she is disorderly … (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 {and simple interest}, and if she does not return or restore it in sound condition (he shall pay) the price corresponding to the value as assessed by Harmiysis, the right of execution resting with Harmiysis against both the debtor and his property, as if in accordance with a legal judgment’).

The act of theft is also taken into consideration in Byzantine contracts that record the lease of vineyards under sharecropping conditions. In this context, the act of theft may be considered in connection with kataphronesis and the premature removal of crops. SB XVIII 13999.1–3 (VI/VII CE, Arsinoites): ε̣ἰ̣ δ[ὲ καταφρον]ή̣σ[ω] τοῦ ἔργου ἢ̣ κ̣αταγν̣[ωσθῶ] εἰς κλ[οπ]ὴ̣ν τ[οῦ] | ² καρποῦ αὐτῶν καὶ φθάσω τὸν καιρὸν τῶ̣ν̣ τρυγῶν, ἐξουσί[αν] | ³ [ὑ]μ̣ᾶς ἕξειν ἀποδιῶξαί με ἐξ αὐτῶν χωρίς τινος (‘If I show contempt toward the work, or am found guilty of theft of the fruit, and obviate the time of the vintage, you shall have the authority to chase me out of them without any (objection?)’). Both the Roman and the Byzantine documents allude to some act of formal procedure of proof, expressed in P.Mich. X 587 through ἁλίσκηται̣ and in SB XVIII 13999 through κ̣αταγν̣[ωσθῶ] εἰς κλ[οπ]ήν. Cf. also P.Berl. Zill. 8; Berger (1911): 176.

Bibl.: Westermann (1914): 296-297; Taubenschlag (1955): 452-458; Freu (2022): 312.

P.Bad. II 19a.10-12 (110, HermN); P.Mich. X 587.22-27 (24/5, Teb); P.Mich.Inv. 931 + P.Col. X 249.17-19 (10, Philagris); P.Stras. VII 677.7-10 (VI, Herm); PSI X 1120.4 (I^lA/I^e, UP); SB XVIII 13997.10-12 (VII^b, ArsN); 13998.9-12 (VI/VII, Alexandrou Nesos); 13999.1-3 (VI/VII, ArsN); 14000.11-13 (VI/VII, ArsN).

Licence

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Section I. Agricultural Context

1. Duties in Lease (general)

2. Sowing

3. Failed Sowing

4. Keeping the Land Fallow

5. Failing to Keep the Land Fallow

6. Irrigation

7. Failure to Irrigate

8. Prohibition against Drawing Water

9. Maintenance of Dykes

10. Koitasmos

Section II. Non-agricultural Context

11. Account of Duties in Contracts of Labour

12. Exclusivity Clause

13. Injunction against Hiring Workers

14. Breach by Employer

15. Construction Clause

16. Wine Storage

Section III. Apprenticeship, Wet-Nurse and Service Contracts

17. Obligation to Teach

18. Failure to Teach

19. Idleness

20. Days of Rest

21. Violation of Rest Clause

22. Wet Nurse’s due Conduct

23. Safekeeping in Labour

24. Failed Safekeeping in Labour

Section IV. Liturgies

25. Exoneration

26. Immunity of Employee

27. Cooperation of Employer

28. Arrears

Section V. Marriage

29. Symbiosis

30. Husband’s due Conduct

31. Husband’s Misconduct

32. Wife’s due Conduct

33. Wife’s Misconduct

Section VI. Violation of Duty

34. Breach of Terms of Contract (General)

Section VII. Standard of Conduct

35. Epimeleia

36. Kataphronesis

37. Blabos

38. Loss of Object of Service

39. Theft

Licence

Share This Book