Page images
PDF
EPUB

strategus Heracleides, with reference to the history of the office of strategus, cf. Martin, "Les stratèges et basilicogrammates du nome Arsinoite," in Archiv, VI (1920), p. 145).

The three lessees are all Aurelii. One of them, Patron, is from Theadelphia; the other two, Asois and Atammon, are from another village of which we can only say that its name was a word of some eight or ten letters, and that it may have been almost any one of the 114 villages listed in Teb. II, apx. (cf. Rostowzew, Large estate, p. 9). As the land was situated near the village of Tanis (1. 4), in the eastern part of the Fayûm, about six miles south of Philadelphia (cf. P. S. I. 537, 4, n.), the greater probability is in favor of a village in this vicinity, perhaps Philadelphia itself. (Gentilli, “Dagli antichi contratti d'affitto," in Studi ital. di filol. class. XIII (1905), 273, says that the applicant for lease "di solito è del luogo dove si trova il terreno richiesto, o poco lontano," but also (271) points out exceptions to this rule, similar to the case of Patron in our document. That these instances are not at variance with the so-called principle of origo (idía) is explained in Rostowzew, Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates, pp. 211 ff. Cf. also Wilcken, Grundzüge, esp. p. 294.

A description of the country about Tanis may be read in Rostowzew's Large estate, which includes interesting information relating to the Roman period as well as to the Ptolemaic period, from which the "large estate" of the Zeno correspondence dates. To the various other references to Tanis in published papyri, we should add the unpublished receipt mentioned above, for rent on a κλĥρos, to be paid to Heracleides by the same three lessees through Amai (or Akai ?) φροντιστής of Tanis.

That the land of the receipt is not the same as that of this lease is evident both from its description as κλîpos, while the lease is for βασιλικὴ γῆ (l. 4), and its location, κλῆρος Πτιαπ', whereas this is ἐν τόπω Φθ Heracleides thus appears both as owner of catoecic land and lessor of crown land, and the other three parties accordingly as lessees of the one and

[ocr errors]

sublessees of the other. (How the owner of private or catoecic land passed the burden of forced lease of crown land on to his tenants may perhaps be illustrated also by Oxy. 730, 7-8, where the land leased is described as ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναγραφομένης eis avtòv BaσiλikĤs YĤs KTλ..) The two documents, taken together, therefore, are an interesting piece of evidence as to a large (?) estate in the Fayûm in the third century A.D.

The body of the document, introduced by the formula Bovλóμeða μolwoaobai, is in the ordinary hypomnema, or memorandum form of application, converted into a contract by the acceptance and signature of the lessor (1. 18). The lease is taken on partnership by the three lessees, each being security for the others (ἐξ ἀλληλεγγύης). It is also κατὰ τὸ ἡμισύ, which ordinarily means on halves, referring to a division of the crops between lessor and lessee in lieu of rent, or, in some cases, in addition to a stated rent, but which here, because of its position, may refer rather to a division of the land itself, Heracleides retaining the other half (τοῦ λοιποῦ ἡμισοῦς μέρους ὄντος σοῦ τοῦ Ἡρακλείδου).

The land is described as to location (περὶ κώμην Τάνιν

ἐν τόπω Φθ . . .), ownership, (βασιλική γη), character (σιτική), and condition (ἀπὸ ἀναπαύματος καὶ καλάμης ἐξ ἴσου), half fallow and half stubble. In undertaking to farm the land, however (1.5), the lessees limit their obligation to the ǎpovpai áπò σtópov only, making specific exception of the ȧπò ȧ[σπópo]v yĤ.

The term of the lease is to be five years and the rent is to be at the rate of three and three fourths artabae per aroura of the land which had been productive (åπò σπóρου), and at the rate of two and one half artabae per aroura of the land which had been unproductive, here (1. 7) described as -μov yn (probably some synonym or more precise description of this particular aσropos y). This second stated rent, however, is to be paid only when this -μov y is farmed. If it is not farmed, something else happens with regard to this rent (1.8); we cannot tell whether to supply a positive expression (e.g. ἔνοχοι ἐσόμεθα τῷ αὐτῷ ἐκφορίῷ) or a negative (e.g. οὐκ ἔνοχοι,

[ocr errors]

KTλ., or an expression beginning with some such word as ȧжоλνσóμelα). Professor Westermann 2 thinks that a negative clause is more probable in view of the specific exception of the ȧπò άστóροv from the obligation to farm, but in that case we should probably have to infer that this whole provision regarding the ȧñò άσñóρον is purely nominal, since the lessees, having their own free choice in the matter, would be unlikely to farm this unproductive or only semi-productive land.

The rent of the ἀπὸ σπόρου is to be ἀσπερμεί. It is uncertain whether we should take it for granted that this provision applies also to the rent of the άπò άσπóрου, or whether we should take it that only the seed for the άπò σπóроυ is to be supplied by the lessor (1. 8). Repayment of the advance of seed is to be made at the time of the payment of the rent.

The lessees undertake to perform the usual farm labors and those connected with the care of the irrigation system. Also (l. 10-11) they undertake to cut and bind the xópros (either the usual ȧváπavois crop or, perhaps, the first crop of the reclaimed åπò άστóρον), and also to do some special job of cutting for the lessor (the xóρros due the lessor from his half of the land or from his half of the crops, or, possibly, the weeds and underbrush of the ἀπὸ ἀσπόρου ?).

Heracleides is further to supply animals and machinery (for artificial irrigation).

The payment of the rent is to take place at the customary time (sc. month Payni ?), at the threshing floor, in stated standard measure. After this (1. 14), some sort of division of crops (?) takes place.

The land is to be restored to the lessor in the condition in which it was taken over by the lessees, and clear of weeds, etc. This is usually the last provision in the leases, followed only by the concluding formula, ἐὰν φαίνηται μισθώσαι, but here

2 We owe to Professor Westermann several specific suggestions as well as some general criticisms of which we can make only general acknowledgment, since the interpretation here presented, of the document as a whole, is quite different both from our own first essay and from the possibilities suggested by him.

the situation is complicated by the introduction of an äλλos Yewpyós who is to coöperate with the three lessees on the understanding that Heracleides shall take τὸ ἐπιβάλλον αὐτῷ τέταρτον μέρος τοῦ ἡμισοῦς μέρους ὅ ἐστιν ὄγδοον μέρος, i.e. the proportionate share of the crops (?) which would fall to him as one of a partnership of four.

Thus while most of the provisions of the document can be readily interpreted by reference to the studies of the leases made by Gentilli (op. cit.) and Waszynski (Die Bodenpacht, also published in 1905) and to the many examples of leases which have been published both before and since 1905 (over 400 leases have been published, and there are, besides, many receipts, letters, and other documents containing relevant material), we have, nevertheless, some interesting problems connected with unusual, if not unique provisions, of which we shall be able to offer only tentative solutions until we have succeeded in restoring more satisfactorily some of the fragmentary lines, particularly line 14, where the division of crops (?) is specified.

It is possible that the explanation of the general scope and tenor of this lease should be sought by comparing it with the following documents, which are, so to speak, combined lease and partnership contracts:

(1) Lips. 18, a contract in which, according to the editor's

explanation, the landholder takes half the produce, just as he would in a lease on half shares, and also enters into a partnership with the other two farmers, συνγεωργήσειν ἀλλήλοις κοινῶς κατὰ τὸ τρίτον κτλ. (2) B. G. U. 1266, a lease in which the lessor μelé¿ei avtoîs tò πέμπτον μέρος and the lessees Σώστρατος δὲ δύο μέρη, θέων δὲ πέμπτον μέρος, Μενέδημος δὲ πέμπτον μέρος, the lessees to pay a stated rent τὸ καθ ̓ ἑαυτὸν μέρος.

(3) B. G. U. 237, a sub-lease, from Baoiλikh yn of a μépos Koivòv kaì ȧdiaí perov, i.e., as Gentilli believes (op. cit. p. 374, n. 3), the leased portion is to be farmed in common with, and not separated from the portion of the land retained by the lessor.

On the analogy of these three documents, we might possibly infer that we have, in our lease, also a partnership of the three lessees on the one hand and Heracleides, the lessor, on the other (ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ κατὰ τὸ ἡμισὺ μέρος τοῦ λοιποῦ ἡμισοῦς μέρους ὄντος σOU TOû 'Hрakλeídov), and that line 14 describes the division of the crops from the whole tract of land. In any case, it appears that Heracleides may enter into a partnership of four with the three lessees, not in his own person, but in the person of the ἄλλος γεωργός. As the lease reads (from seed time τοῦ εἰσιόντος ἔτους), this ἄλλος γεωργός is as yet a purely hypothetical person; he might even be a slave (cf. Rostowzew, Kolonat, p. 195) and without financial competence. Therefore the three lessees here named are ég áλλŋλeyyúns only as regards one another, and Heracleides is left to make all the arrangements regarding him and, accordingly, to take his share of the division (namely, now that there may be four farmers working together, “the fourth part of the half part, which is the eighth part”).

It is more likely, however, that we have to do with a simpler document of lease on shares, either of a half portion of the land, the other half being retained by Heracleides,3 or, more probably, regardless of the curious position of κatà tò ǹμiov, of the whole tract of land, the half share of the crops being paid in addition to the stated rents (as in Lips. 22; Hamb. 68; B. G. U. 1266, etc.).

2. μη(τρὸς) Φάσιο[s]?

Possibly τ[οῦ] καὶ "Ασιο[ς]

3. éπì KOLVwvia. Cf., further, San Nicolò, Aegyptisches Vereinsἐπὶ κοινωνία. wesen, I, pp. 148 ff.; Wilcken, Grundzüge, p. 292; and

the documents cited in these works.

4. ἀπὸ ἀναπαύματος κτλ. The usual translation of these terms as "fallow" and "stubble" respectively is inexact. Rotation of crops is to be understood rather than an

3 In this case we are at a loss for any indication of how the ȧñò σñóρον and the ȧπò ȧσπóρou were divided respectively between the leased portion and the portion retained by the lessor, unless, as Professor Westermann suggests, we may possibly identify Heracleides' half portion of the land with the ȧ❤wpioμévn åπò áσπóρov yî (1. 5) and -μov yî (1. 7), which the lessees may, if they like, farm at a lower rental.

« PreviousContinue »