A Ptolemaic Lease Contract: P.Monts. Roca inv. no. 381 + 569 + 578 + 649[*]
Skip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information)
This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact email@example.com for more information. :
For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.
|P.Monts. Roca inv. 381 + 569 + 578 + 649||Plates I–IV||15.5 x 13.2 cm; 13.7 x 22.6 cm; 13.6 x 7 cm; 23.9 x 37 cm|
|Dec. 9, 148 BC||Hephaistias, Ars. nome|
This collection of fragments belonging to a single Greek document measures together approximately 30 x 27.5 cm. After serving its original purpose as a so-called hexamartyros syggraphê the papyrus was apparently used for the production of mummy cartonnage. This observation is supported especially by the polychrome traces on the back of inv. 649, the fragment that is the largest and contains most of the left hand margin of the document. Written along the upper margin of the papyrus sheet in a very small and almost illegible script one finds a copy of the text of the document, the so-called scriptura interior, that was signed by the witnesses and then was rolled up. Below this comes the scriptura exterior that was to be left visible after the scriptura interior of the hexamartyros syggraphê had been rolled up.
The document is dated to the 34th year of Ptolemy VI Philometor and Kleopatra II, Hathyr 12. Using the conversion tables produced by T.C. Skeat, the precise date turns out to be 9.xii.148 BC. The priests mentioned are:
|Priest of Alexander and the deified Ptolemies:||Ḳlyḳlꜣs (Kalliklês), son of Tyẉkrts (Diokratês or Theokratês)|
|Athlophoros of Berenike Euergetis:||ꜣrwnyꜣs (Ergonoê), daughter of Anaxandros|
|Kanephoros of Arsinoe Philadelphos:||ꜣsḳlpyꜣs (Asklêpias), daughter of Ptolemaios|
|Priestess of Arsinoe Philopator:||[A]pollonia, daughter of Isokratês|
Clarysse and van der Veken give as the sole attestation of this set of priests P.Cair. II 31179. This papyrus from Montserrat offers some important new data in addition to the information already given by Clarysse and van der Veken.
Analysis of the scriptura exterior:
1–5: Dating formula of Ptolemy VI Philometor and Kleopatra II, indication of various priesthoods filled by various priests;
5–6: Indication of date [12 Artemisios = 12 Hathyr] and place [the village of Hephaistias in the Arsinoite nome];
6–7: Opening of the document (a lease of land) presenting a description of the two parties concerned: 1. Herakleides, son of Nikanor, for a certain Euboulos, member of the King's inner circle and owner of a dorea near Hephaistias; 2. Petosouchos, son of Phramenis, inhabitant of Arsinoe;
8–11: Indication of the term of the contract (1 year) and of the amount of land involved: 15.25 arouras of wheat land, split up into 2 plots, (1) of 11 arouras at a rent of 4 art. / ar., and (2) of 4.25 arouras at a rent of 5.6666 art. / ar.;
11–13: Obligations in case of normal irrigation: Petosouchos takes care of sowing at his own expense; he will also pay the rent in full, even if he quits the lease early;
13–17: Warranty of the lessors (Herakleides, respectively the representatives of Euboulos) that in case of failure to meet with their obligations they will pay a penalty of 20 talents and the damages, while the lease will not be terminated;
18–19: Clauses concerning date of paying the rent, the place of delivery [Hephaistias], the quality of the wheat to be handed over and who is bearing the cost;
19–24: Provision for the case that Petosouchos does not provide any wheat for payment of rent: he shall pay a penalty of 1000 drachmas per artaba, or the highest market price at Hephaistias;
24–27: The normal praxis- and kyria-clauses.
27–30: Listing of the six witnesses: 1. Pamênis, a priest; 2. N.N. and 3. Diodoros (both Persians) and 4. Kallias (a Thracian), all three members of the 2nd cavalry regiment under the command of Aratos and holders of a plot of 100 arouras; 5. Dorotheos; and 6. Ptolemaios, both members of a cavalry regiment and Macedonians; keeper of the contract is Pamênis;
31–32: Subscription by Ptolemaios;
33–34: Subscription by Petosouchos;
34: Subscription by Pamênis,
35: Resumé of most essential data of the document
(1) In the reign of Ptolemy and Kleopatra son and daughter of Ptolemy and Kleopatra, the Gods Epiphaneis, in the thirty-fourth year, Kallikles son of Diokritos being priest of Alexander and the Gods Soteres and the Gods Adelphoi and the Gods Euergetai and the Gods Philopatores and the Gods Epiphaneis, and the God Eupator and the Gods Philometores. And the athlophoros of Berenike Euergetis being Ergonoe daughter of Alexander, the kanephoros of Arsinoe Philadelphus being Asklepias daughter of Ptolemy (5) son of Asklepiades, the priestess of Arsinoe Philopator being Apollonia daughter of Isokrates, on the twelfth of the month Artemisios, Hathyr the twelfth, in Hephaistias in the Arsinoite nome. Herakleides, son of Nikanor, manager of the estate of Euboulos, one of the first friends, has leased to Petosouchos son of Phramenis, Arsinoite, peasant, from the above mentioned estate, of land fifteen and a quarter arouras for the thirty-fourth year for a rent for each aroura for (a plot of) eleven of them of four artabas of wheat, for the remaining (10) four and a quarter arouras for a rent of five and two-thirds artabas of wheat, guaranteed against every risk and not subject to deduction for damage. When this land has been irrigated Petosouchos shall sow the land at his own expense, supplying to himself pure grain. If he does not sow the land or if he leaves the lease after having sown, he shall pay the whole rent.
And when the land has been sown, Herakleides and Euboulos' representatives must guarantee to Petosouchos and his representatives the lease and the land [and the crops?] for the agreed period of time. (15) If he fails to guarantee the lease as written above, the above mentioned Herakleides or Euboulos' representatives, being partners in the guarantee, shall pay a fine of twenty talents of bronze, and the damages and this lease must be no less authoritative. And Petosouchos must be allowed to evict in return anyone who forces his way onto the land, without being liable to any penalty. If the lease is confirmed, Petosouchos shall deliver to Herakleides and the representatives of Euboulos the stipulated rent in the month (20) of Pachon of the same year and he must hand over the crop in the same village [---] Euboulos, wherever they order, in new, pure and unadulterated grain ... (transported) to Hephaistias ... at their own expense. And for each artaba which he does not deliver, Petosouchos shall pay immediately a fine of one thousand drachmas of bronze or the highest price that may be (charged) at the market of Hephaistias. (25) Let there be for Herakleides and Euboulos' representatives the right of execution on the person of Petosouchos himself and on all his possessions, as according to the regulation and the laws. This contract is authoritative. Witnesses: Pamênis, priest; NN; Diodoros, both Persians; Kallias, Thracian, all three of them hekatontarouroi from the second hipparchy of Aratos; Dorotheos; Ptolemaios, both Macedonians of the Epigone. (30) Keeper of the contract, Pamênis, priest.
I, Herakleides, have leased out in accordance with what is written above and have deposited the contract with NN son of ---souchos
I, Petesouchos, have leased in accordance with what is written above and have signed the contract.
I, Pamênios, have received (the contract in deposit).
1 (1) For the regnal formula, see P.Köln IV 187.1 and SB III 7188.1. The formula never appears to have τῶν ἐκ Πτολεμαίου κτλ., which is sometimes restored by modern editors (cf., e.g., P.Gen. II 87.1, SB V 7632.1 and XVI 12373.1).
The priest of Alexander and the deified Ptolemies is attested in Demotic as Ḳlyḳlꜣs (Kalliklês), son of Tyẉkrts. Clarysse and van der Veken (op.cit. [n. 4]) transliterate this second name as "Diokratês or Theokratês." We venture to think that "-krts" may also stand for Greek names in "-kritos"; hence we should be dealing, then, with a Greek name Diokritos or Theokritos. Our papyrus in the scriptura exterior presents an incomplete and partly doubtful reading of which only the letters omikron, kappa, rho, and iota are more or less secure, while a more doubtful reading of delta + iota seems more attractive than theta + epsilon; hence we propose to read Δ̣ι̣οκρί[του. This name does not appear in the usual papyrological onomastica nor in W. Pape and G.E. Benseler, Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen (Brunswick 1862–70), but it occurs in P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews, Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (Oxford 1987) I 135 (an attestation on Rhodes); the Epigraphical Database of the Packard Humanities Institute (see http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/) gives an extra attestation from another Greek island, i.e. I.Cret. I xxii 4A.7 (III BC).
1–2 (2–3) Compare Kalliklês' eponymous formula with the formula in P.Dryton 2 = P.Grenf. I 12.4 (150 BC), P.Lond. VII 2188.26ff. (148 BC), P.Köln IV 187.3ff. (146 BC) and P.Gen. II 87.2 (145/4 BC); for the "god Eupator" in particular, see J. Whitehorne, Cleopatras (London-New York 2001) 241 (index) for "Ptolemy Eupator of Egypt."
3–4 (4–5) In P.Köln IV 187.7 (146 BC), the father of Ergonoê appears to be Ἀνάξανδρος. We have verified the reading and conclude that somewhere a misunderstanding must be at hand. The kanephoros Asklepias, daughter of Ptolemy appears in P.Cairo II 31179 (= F. de Cenival, Les associations religieuses en Égypte d'après les documents démotiques [Cairo 1972] 63). Asklepias was the athlophoros the preceding year in P.Meerman. 3 + P.dem. Wien Kunsth. Mus. inv. 3874, ined. Apollonia daughter of Isokrates held the priesthood of Arsinoe Philopator a number of years (Clarysse and van der Veken, op.cit. [above, n. 4] nos. 142–145c) as attested by various demotic documents. She is attested in Greek also in P.Köln IV 187 (and restored in a lacuna in SB XXIV 16054 [145 BC]).
4 (5) In the lacuna at the end of the line in the scriptura exterior we restore the name of the Macedonian month corresponding to Hathyr 12 in l. 6 as Ἀρτεμισίου δωδε]κ̣άτηι. Cf. the scriptura interior, l. 4. Cf. in general A.E. Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich 1962) 129–130, and the situation in SB XVI 12373.5 (158 BC): Audnaios 8 = Epeiph 8.
5 (7) The titulature τῶν πρώτων φίλων appears in l. 5 of the scriptura interior. In the scriptura exterior there is a lacuna following τῶν φίλ[, but one can hardly think of an inversion of the words into τῶν φίλων πρώτων. To date, an Euboulos "of the first friends" is unknown. He does not appear in the Pros.Ptol. nor in L. Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt. Introduction and Prosopography. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor wetenschappen, letteren en schone kunsten van Belgïe. Klasse der Letteren XXXVII, Nr. 78 (Brussels 1975); id., La hiérarchie de cour ptolémaïque. Contribution à l'étude des institutions et des classes dirigeantes à l'époque hellénistique. Stud.Hell. 23 (Louvain 1977). For a later development concerning the title "of the first friends" see J.F. Oates, "Equal in Honor to the First Friends," BASP 32 (1995) 13–21.
6–7 (10) For the rent level, cf. Hennig, op.cit. (above, n. 6) 27.
9–10 (13–14) One would expect here a wording like βεβαιούτωσαν Ἡρακλείδης καὶ οἱ παρ᾽ Εὐβούλου Πετοσούχωι καὶ τοῖς παρὰ Πετοσούχου τὴν μίσθωσιν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τοὺς καρποὺς ἐπὶ τὸν συγγεγραμμένον χρόνον (cf. parallels such as BGU VI 1264.26–27; 1266.33–34; 1267.17; X 1943.16–17; 1949.5–6; XIV 2383.14; 2384.15; 2390.27; P.Frankf. 1, Int. 41–42, Ext. 45–46; 2, Int. 30–31, Ext. 36–37 and P.Hib. I 90.16–17; although these Ptolemaic texts are mostly from the Oxyrhynchite or the Herakleopolite nomes, rather than from the Arsinoite). The reading καὶ τὴν γῆν ἐαν[ on the scriptura interior seems clear enough, but as parallels are lacking we cannot find an explanation for this; maybe the solution should be found in cancelling the last letters, εαν, after which we may carry on with καὶ τοὺς καρποὺς, etc.
For Arsinoite land leases featuring a τὸν συγγεγραμμένον χρόνον clause, cf. PSI X 1098.16–17 (Tebtynis, 51 BC): βεβαιούτω δὲ Ἀρίστων τοῖς μεμισθωμένοις τὴν μί[σθ]ωσιν ταύτην ἐπὶ τὸν συγγεγραμμένον χρόνον; P.Tebt. I 105.29–30 (Tebtynis, 103 BC): βεβαιώτω δὲ Ὡρίων Πτολεμαίωι καὶ τοῖς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὴν μίσθωσιν κα[ὶ] τὰ ἐκ τῆς [γῆς] [γεν]ήματα ἐκκαρπίσασθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς διηγορευμένοις τὸν συγγεγραμμένον χρόνον.
12–14 (18–23) The corresponding passages in both texts are difficult to reconcile. The scriptura interior has:
while the exterior has:
For the general wording of the text compare:
P.Yale I 51.22–24 (cf. ll. 10–11):
P.Amh. II 44.29–34 (cf. ll. 9–11):
PSI Χ 1098.20–26:
P.Tebt. I 105.39–42:
P.Tebt. I 106.26–29:
On the basis of these parallel texts one expects in our text a wording like οὗ ἂν συντάσσωσιν πυρὸν νέον καθαρὸν ἄδολον μέτρῳ δικαίῳ μετρήσει δικαίαι καὶ καταστήσαντες εἰς Ἡφαιστιάδα τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνηλώμασιν.
13 (19–20) According to ll. 19–20 of the scriptura exterior, the scriptura interior should read ἐκφόρια ἐν μηνὶ Παχὼν τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔτους καὶ παραδότω τὰ γενήματὰ ἐν τῆι. But since there is a line written above the text, it may be assumed that the scribe first forgot and afterwards inserted part of this text.
In the scriptura exterior, l. 20, two different months could possibly be restored, Pachon or Pauni. Moreover the month should be the harvest month. For the wheat harvest in Roman Egypt (late Pharmouthi [= April] – early Pauni [= June]) see P.W. Pestman, The New Papyrological Primer (Leiden 19942) 316–317. Here, however, we are in Ptolemaic Egypt, and that at a moment when Hathyr 12 is December 9th, rather than November 8th or 9th (in a Roman leap year). Consequently, all Egyptian calendar data in this text fall approximately one month later in Roman Egypt. It follows that a supposed harvest date in P[auni] would fall effectively in Epeiph, i.e. during the rise of the Nile: not a particularly apt season for collecting harvests etc. Accordingly, the month name most likely to be restored in this Ptolemaic text is that of Π[αχών], which equals Pauni in Roman Egypt.
15 (25) There is a gap in the text of the scriptura exterior l. 25 of ca. 1 cm between the words καὶ and τοῖς.
17 (27) A Diodoros, Πέρσης, appears in BGU VI 1254.1, a complaint sent to the κωμογραμματεύς of the village of Hephaistias in 154/3 or 143/2 BC. (cf. Pros.Ptol. II 2778, p. 106). He belonged to the second hipparchy (a cavalry unit) under the command of Ἀ̣ρω̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]καὶ Λύκωνος. The reading of Ἀ̣ρω̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] should most probably be taken as a misreading for Ἀρά̣τ̣[ου, alpha and omega being often very similar in Ptolemaic hands.
No doubt, the first of these two commanders (cf. Pros.Ptol. II 1858, p. 8) must be identical with the Aratos mentioned in our text. There is an Aratos in the Pros.Ptol. II 1850 (p. 7), who seems to be an eponymous officer in P.Tebt. III.2 971.21 (150 BC).
On military personnel, see F. Übel, Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemaeern, (Berlin 1968), and for the foreign ethnics (Thracians, Persians, Macedonians tês epigonês) see C.A. La'da, "Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt," in Pros.Ptol X (2002) 87ff. (Thracians) 229ff. (Persians; our Diodorus is La'da's # E 1984 on p. 232), and 201ff. (Makedônes tês epigonês).
Ext. 32, 34 One might expect συγγραφὴν κυρίαν, as in other examples of the formula found while searching the DDBDP for τέθειμαι (cf. the 2nd century BC Fayumic texts BGU VI 1271.14; P.Meyer 2.5; P.Oslo III 140.5; P.Tebt. I 105.61; III.1 818.30; P.Würzb. 6 Ext. 39; SB VIII 9679.3; XVI 12372.22), but this does not seem to fit the traces.
One expects the name of the συγγραφοφύλαξ Pamênis, but the traces seem to belong to a name starting with Φ-, perhaps followed by a mother's name Θενπετοσοῦχος.
Ext. 35 We think that in this line at least the elements ια, δ[ ], δd and εβ̣ refer to elements, in particular numerals, mentioned already earlier in the preceding contract. The numerals ια (= 11) and δd (= 4.25) may be taken to refer to the number of arourae in each of the two plots of land referred to, while the first delta (= 4), must be, then, the rent paid for the first plot at four artabae per aroura, and the letters εβ̣ (= 5 2/3) indicate the amount of rent for the second plot of land. The first numeral, however, ιϛ‾ (= 16) is a mystery; as we do not see what this refers to (a σφραγίς numeral is not mentioned in the text itself) the function of the μ( ) is equally uncertain (it is unlikely to represent an abbreviation of μισθός) and the last word is not fully readable. While we cannot come further than reading μεμι ̣ ̣ ̣ , we think that this must be a perfect form of the verb μισθόω. As we are at the end of the scriptura exterior, at this place the whole function of such summary of some important elements in the lease raises questions; such a summary, after all, may be expected rather on the verso of the text. Maybe these indications served as an aide-mémoire for the scribe who had to devise phrasings for the whole contract, i.e. the scriptura interior and, after that, the scriptura exterior?
We want to express our sincere gratitude to the Benedictine community of the Abbey of Montserrat for allowing us to publish this piece here, especially to Father Pius Tragan, who always received us at the monastery with generosity. We also sincerely thank our colleague Brian P. Muhs for polishing our English text.
Both texts are virtually the same. In the transcript of the scriptura interior we include in parentheses the line number of the scriptura exterior corresponding to the text in the interior. In the notes to the text we use the same procedure.
T.C. Skeat, The Reigns of the Ptolemies. Münch.Beitr., 39 (Munich 19692); see also the website <http://aegyptologie.online-resourcen.de/Ptolemaic_Kings>.
P.Cair.dem. II 31179 = F. de Cenival, Les associations religieuses en Égypte d'après les documents démotiques (Cairo 1972) 63; see now also P.Köln IV 187, also featuring the patronymic as Anaxandros instead of Alexandros presented by our text.
For leases of land in general, cf. D. Hennig, Untersuchungen zur Bodenpacht im ptolemäisch-römischen Ägypten (Diss. Munich 1967). See in particular p. 27 for the rate of the rent; pp. 80–81, 92–93 for a list of penalties to be paid by whomsoever (lessor or lessee) breaks the contract; and pp. 185–190 for a list of 2nd century BC leases from the Fayum.