ANTONIA TRIPOLITIS
From Ammonius son of Apollonius son of Apollonius from Nikias,
I wish to lease for five years from the current 12th year for summer crops
the land which was formerly held on lease by Bes son of Nektheros from
Nesus Mesopotamia, consisting of 2 arourae near Senis and 1 aroura near
Psingenisbthis, a total of 3 arourae or however many they may be in the
1st sector at a fixed rent. The rent for each of the 2 arourae near Senis,
instead of the 16 drachmae previously paid, being 10 (plus) drachmae
and that for the 1 aroura near Psingenisbthis [being X drachmae. Nor shall
I be compelled] to pay more than the rent [upon which we agreed.] If anything happens or the land is unwatered in part, there shall be given to me
a rebate as in similar cases, and after the contracted period I shall not
be held to the same lease against my will. The 12th year of the Emperor
Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus Armeniacus Medicus Parthicus Maximus. Thoth 22. I, Ammonius son of Apollonius submitted this
application as aforesaid...................... (Countersigned) Peton son of
Festus. 30th roll, column 12..............
1. nTapa 'Appicov[ (ou: nap' 'Alicov[ iou ed.
2. toU0 'ATroAAcov[ 'ou]: ToO MAAcov[os] ed. The papyrus is rubbed here, but
the asTb in line 4 resembles the &rrb in 'ATroAcov[ iou].
13-15. The editor has indicated a break of three lines on the papyrus. The
papyrus is preserved in two pieces. By fitting the edges of the two pieces of
papyrus together, I find, however, that there are only two lines missing. The possible restoration of these lines is:ov[- os] (8paXp'Av) i. KO[ i srTs ]pi T,vyev[,o][ 3O[ iv] (&pouprqs) [(a O6voS (6paXpAv).. Kai oh KTOa][OXoiQaopat +1]EEa iaatl TrA[ iova TOO]
I construe OVTro with qopou: "The rent (for the 2 arourae near Senis) being 10
(plus) drachmae, and that for the 1 aroura near Psingenisbthis being X drachmae.
Nor shall I be compelled to pay more than (the rent upon which we agreed)."
16. u at the beginning of the line is clear, thus the editor's conjecture
['ro0 TpOKElPeIIvou p6pou is not possible. Perhaps e.g. ](pi' ipobv i -raTi]vou v (pou.
17. &rr[6 (pipous)]: The supplement piepous seems obligatory, but there is
not sufficient room for it to have been written out: Ey (pepous) ed.
26. Ka'i gypaq............. ypap(pia'ra): The editor's Kai E"ypaqOe Aiob S 8 aI6ToS
ypa<(ep~s) is not recognizable in the quickly written traces, nor does Eypaq>6 0Trip
aTro ~ u Ei66TOS ypppal'ra stand in the text.
28. "A T6(PoU KoA(AijaTos) t3. This reading has been suggested by Prof.
E.G. Turner instead of the editor's Au(K6)sToA(iý) 3t ("rous). The traces are
very faint, but after tp the letters Trpoeeiv can be seen clearly. The traces that
follow do not seem to me to be at (TTpoOev at] was conjectured by Prof. H.C. Youtie,
CP 39, 1944, p. 122), and I read them as.t..cov, the meaning of which escapes
me. Prof. Turner, however does not think that at could be excluded, and reads
TrpoOei'vai..cov, (the first missing letter might be v or Tr, the second o).
29. '. ti........ou ( ). The editor completely omits this line from
his transcription.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTONIA TRIPOLITIS
