Transmission of Cleruchic Land : A Model to describe the Procedure

(1)

Article

Reference

Transmission of Cleruchic Land : A Model to describe the Procedure

SCHUBERT, Paul

Abstract

A description of the procedure by which the plots allotted to soldiers in Ptolemaic Egypt were transmitted, down to the Roman period.

SCHUBERT, Paul. Transmission of Cleruchic Land : A Model to describe the Procedure. Archiv für Papyrusforschung und Verwandte Gebiete, 2019, vol. 65, p. 280-316

DOI : 10.1515/apf-2019-0014

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:128093

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

(2)

A Model to Describe the Procedure

Paul Schubert^*

Abstract: The first rulers of the Ptolemaic dynasty granted cleruchic land to their soldiers.

The process by which this category of land was transmitted from one holder to the next was strictly controlled. The precise procedure of transfer can be reconstructed on the basis of documents dating from the Ptolemaic and Roman period. An attempt is made here to provide a synthetic model for this procedure, and to highlight the difference between the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.

Keywords: cleruchic land, katoikos, property cession, army, administration https://doi.org/10.1515/apf-2019-0014

Introduction

Cleruchic land was granted by the Ptolemies to their soldiers who could cultivate it while off military duty, and it retained a formal existence through the early Roman period. The special status of this land category is reflected in the particular procedure by which cleruchic land was transmitted from one occupant to the next.

The pioneers of papyrology already examined this phenomenon in detail, and their successors, with the benefit of new papyri, added much

Vorbemerkung: This article was written during a sabbatical leave granted by the University of Geneva and financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (# 174419);

I am grateful to both institutions for their support. I would like to thank Bernhard Palme and Fritz Mitthof for their generous hospitality at the Austrian National Library and at the University of Vienna. Helpful comments from the journal’s editors are also gratefully acknowledged.

* Kontakt: Paul Schubert, Faculté des lettres, Université de Genève, Rue de Candolle 2, 1205 Genève, Schweiz, <paul.schubert@unige.ch>

Brought to you by | Université de Genève - Bibliothèque de Genève Authenticated | paul.schubert@unige.ch author's copy Download Date | 12/2/19 9:36 AM

(3)

knowledge to our initial understanding of it.¹ No attempt has been made recently, however, at reconstructing the mechanism of transmission on the basis of the currently available sources.² Although it is widely recognized that the procedure used in the Roman period contains so-called fossils from earlier times, the relative position of the numerous pieces of this jigsaw puzzle now seems to be taken for granted.³ The major administrative shift that takes place around the mid-first century AD, with the foundation of a record-office (δηµοσία βιβλιοθήκη) and a registry of property (βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων), also had a deep impact on the transmission of cleruchic land, as was recognized by previous scholars; but the effect on the procedure deserves closer examination through a comparison with the earlier and later periods.

Navigating among the various and disseminated approaches taken by military historians, specialists of the administration of Graeco-Roman Egypt and editors of papyri, is a difficult task; it is made even more ar- duous by the particular vocabulary and concepts used in the field of juri- stic papyrology. With this attempt at synthesis, based primarily on the papyrological sources, I would like to provide the reader with an overview of a complicated procedure. Along the way, I also hope to be able to answer some related questions that have found so far no satisfactory answer.

This is not a complete study of the cleruchic system: its focus will lie in the process by which an occupant of cleruchic land transmitted his plot to the next occupant through an intricate administrative procedure that is abundantly documented.

It must also be stressed from the outset that this tentative reconstruction involves piecing together texts that were produced in various areas of Egypt over a long period of time. Admittedly, the resulting model can only be a kind of hybrid. Taking into account every single aspect of chro- nology and administrative geography would require a mass of documents which we do not have. Nonetheless, enough material is available to allow for a relatively precise description of the procedure we shall now examine.

1 Among the pioneers of papyrology, esp. Preisigke 1910: 282–309; Mitteis 1912: I 90–

112; von Woess 1924; Kunkel 1928.

2 A brief overview of the procedure is available in Scheuble-Reiter 2012: 164–165 and in the introduction to BGU XX 2843 (p. 25), but both publications fail to provide a comprehensive model, and they do not describe the shift between the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.

3 ‘Fossils’ mentioned by Benaissa 2009: 160, 172 and 178; Fischer-Bovet 2014: 206 and 215.

(4)

Cleruchic land and the katoikoi: a summary

Like many rulers of their time, the Ptolemies were faced with a dilemma when it came to maintaining an army.⁴ One option was to rely on foreign mercenaries, who were costly when in active service, but could be sent home at little expense, provided that they had been properly paid in the first place. Mercenaries could also be unruly and were never entirely trustworthy. The second option was for the king to enroll his own subjects or immigrant settlers, who would cost him less than hired mercenaries and were more likely to behave loyally towards their ruler. There was a drawback too: the king had to provide his soldiers with the means to make a living when they were not on active duty.

Ptolemy Soter and his successors chose one or the other option depend- ing on the circumstances of the day, and they also took the geostrategic dimension into consideration. In times of crisis, it was necessary to hire mercenaries to strenghthen the regular army; soldiers serving for pay (µισθοφόροι) also predominate in Upper Egypt in the second century BC.⁵ In the Fayum and Middle Egypt, the king chose the second option: his soldiers would be settled on land belonging to the crown in exchange for military service and the payment of a low tax at a fixed rate. This system was adopted by Ptolemy II Philadelphos, whose soldiers were allowed to develop cultivation through reclamation work. A well-known case con- sists in the development of the Fayum, which was named the Arsinoite nome in honour of Philadelphos’ sister Arsinoe.⁶ In the second century BC, cleruchic land was in principle granted only from uncultivated land that could be improved.⁷

4 On the relationship of mutual interest between rulers and soldiers, Fischer-Bovet 2014: 167–168. Rostovtzeff 1941: I 284–287 and Crawford 1971: 53–54 both provide a clear summary of the nature and purpose of cleruchic grants in Ptolemaic Egypt; more recently, also Fischer-Bovet 2014: 199. Lewis 1986: 32–35 gives an excellent overview of the evolution of ownership of cleruchic land through the Ptolemaic era.

5 Vandorpe 2008: 93–94.

6 Manning 2003: 103–110; Fischer-Bovet 2014: 201.

7 Crawford 1971: 58. Verhoogt 1998: 26 records infractions to the rule in the late second century BC, although it seems still to apply in P.Köln V 227.5 (AD 12/13): µετεπι- γέγραπται ἃς τυγχάνει ἐωνηµένος ἐξ ὑπολόγου ‘he has changed the registration of the (arourai) that he purchased from land with reduced income [i.e. uncultivated, or under- cultivated].’

(5)

A soldier was thus also a κληροῦχος, i.e. the holder of a plot of land (κλῆρος), without ever becoming its formal owner.⁸ The plot could not be sold, and in principle it returned to the crown after the holder’s death. It is likely that the grant was tacitly renewed every year, provided that the holder’s situation remained unchanged.⁹ If the holder was absent, he incurred the risk that part of his plot be leased to someone else until his return.¹⁰ In fact, holders of large plots did not cultivate their allotment with their own hands, but lived off its rent, presumably because they could be called on for military duty at any time.¹¹

It did not take long, however, before the formal aspect of this arrangement started drifting. A κληροῦχος who had founded a family may have wished, upon his death, to bequeath his plot to his children, notably if the boys assumed the military duties of their father. Land was also transmitted to persons who had not taken over the military duties of the former holder;

in other words, the benefit drawn from the plot soon became dissociated from the obligation to serve in the army. In addition to this, the system of cleruchic land could produce a perverse effet, by which the holder of a kleros became unable to pay the taxes due to the Crown; he was thus forced to relinquish his plot to another person.¹²

In many ways, cleruchic land evolved into a sort of private land. A brief mention of some concrete cases will provide evidence for this evolution.¹³ – In 225 BC, some κλῆροι were mortgaged as a guarantee for the repay-

ment of seeds.¹⁴

– In 217 BC, cleruchic land could already be passed on to the son of a deceased soldier, on the condition that it be registered within a pre-

8 Uebel 1968: 355–360. In P.Enteux. 55.3 (222 BC), the king’s rights on a plot are explicitly acknowledged by the sender of a petition: ἔχοντος γάρ µου κλῆρον παρὰ σοῦ, βασιλεῦ ‘for I hold a plot from you, king’.

9 Kiessling 1938: 216.

10 Uebel 1968: 18 and again P.Enteux. 55, where a κληροῦχος complains that, during his absence in Alexandria, half of his plot was leased to another κληροῦχος, who refuses to pay him a rent on his return from the city. The concept of half-plot (ἡµικλήριον) is already attested in 243 BC (P.Tebt. III.1 746.21).

11 Kiessling 1938: 216–217. According to Fischer-Bovet 2014: 215, it was more conve- nient for those who had smaller plots to do the work by themselves.

12 Scheuble-Reiter 2012: 159–160.

13 For a comprehensive description of the evolution, Scheuble-Reiter 2012: 142– 170.

14 P.Hib. I 48.2–4.

(6)

scribed period.¹⁵ The wording of the condition is especially interesting:

ἕως τοῦ, ἐὰν ὑπάρχωσιν αὐτῶι υἱοί, ἐπιγραφῆναι ἐν ταῖς κατὰ τὸ πρόσταγµα ἡµέραις ‘until, if he leaves sons, they are registered within the number of days prescribed by the (royal) ordinance’. There was apparently a registration (ἐπιγραφή), which implies the existence of a record-office specifically established for this purpose by the king.

When, in a later period, the transmission of cleruchic land becomes a matter of routine, an essential stage of the procedure will consist in a change of registration (µετεπιγραφή).

– In 202 BC, a contract in demotic Egyptian records the transmission of cleruchic land ‘for eternity’, implying a status close to a right of property instead of a temporary grant made by the king.¹⁶

– By the second century, possession of cleruchic land was transferred to individuals who did not belong to a family of cleruchs.¹⁷

– In 118 BC, an amnesty decree indicates not only that the transmission of cleruchic land was tolerated by the crown, but that its possession in the hands of non-cleruchs was confirmed, although the legal wording used to describe the transmission of cleruchic land remained unchanged.¹⁸ – In the mid-first century BC, an orphaned female claims possession of

cleruchic land left by her deceased father. She explicitly refers to a royal ordinance and justifies her claim by the fact that there are no male heirs.¹⁹ Women are officially allowed to take over cleruchic land, but they will be consistently discriminated against, at least till the early second century AD, by having to pay a higher rate for the tax on the transmission of plots of cleruchic origin.²⁰

Cleruchic land was not allotted uniformly: the size of plots varied according to the rank of the soldier, cavalrymen holding the highest position.

15 P.Lille I 4.26–27 (= W.Chr. 336), quoted by Crawford 1971: 55–57; Lewis 1986:

313; Scheuble-Reiter 2012: 149–150.

16 P.Bürgsch. 7.3 (Sethe & Partsch 1920: 129); Kiessling 1938: 218. On the right to inherit a kleros, Oates 1995: 156–157. At a later date, see also BGU VI 1285 (110 or 74 BC), a will that holds a mention of the transmission of a kleros.

17 Fischer-Bovet 2014: 235: ‘(...) cession documents, attested only from the second century BC onward, suggest that the status of the kleros was moving slightly toward the

‘privatization-end of the spectrum’ but was no private property.’

18 P.Tebt. I 124.25-40 (= C.Ord. Ptol. 54). On this amnesty decree, Kiessling 1938:

219–220.

19 SB VIII 9790 (= Rowlandson 1998, n° 167).

20 P.Iand. VII 137.

(7)

Around the mid-second century, when other groups of soldiers were introduced, a distinction was made between the original κληροῦχοι and the newcomers. The κληροῦχοι were designated as κάτοικοι ἱππεῖς ‘cavalry settlers’, or simply κάτοικοι.²¹ As the newcomers gradually blended into the category of κάτοικοι in the first century BC, the land initially allotted to the cleruchs came to be designated as κατοικικὴ γῆ, a wording that remained in use down to the Roman period.²²

The formal dimension of κατοικικὴ γῆ survived also in the technical terms used for the transmission of cleruchic land, a specificity that en- dured through the early Roman period, at least till the third century AD:²³ in most cases, there was no ‘sale’ of land (πρᾶσις), but a ‘cession’ (παρα- χώρησις); and the money paid for the cession was not called a ‘price’

(τιµή), but a ‘cession capital in silver’ (παραχωρητικὸν ἀργυρικὸν κεφά- λαιον).²⁴ This is no mere play on words: παραχώρησις was, juridically speaking, foreign to the idea of sale because it was not conceived as a way of passing over the rights of property: the holder of a plot ‘stepped aside’

to leave room for another holder.²⁵

This particular wording was only the most conspicuous element that preserved a distant link between, on the one hand, cleruchic land and its military origin, and on the other, what had become in essence a category of private land in Roman Egypt.²⁶ The formal procedure used for the transmission of cleruchic land was also special, and it retained its specificity for as long as the notion of cleruchic land was considered relevant.

Occasionally, scribes themselves seem to miss this fundamental distinction and use the word τιµή when dealing with the cession of κατοικική γῆ.²⁷ Finally, in AD 250, we find a contract of sale of κατοικικὴ γῆ where

21 Uebel 1968: 368–369.

22 Rowlandson 1996: 45; Fischer-Bovet 2014: 217.

23 A contract of cession of κατοικικὴ γῆ is attested in AD 289 (BGU I 94).

24 Rupprecht 1984: 370–371; Maresch 2002: 238.

25 Rupprecht 1984: 387; Lewis 1989: 314. The legal concept of cession (παραχώρησις) may originate in Egyptian law; see Vandorpe 2002: 26, where the Greek testament (δια- θήκη) is opposed to the Egyptian deed of division; also Manning 2003: 193–197 and 212.

26 Monson 2012: 121–122.

27 BGU II 543.11–13 (27 BC): διὰ τὸ ἀπεσχηκέναι µε τὴν τοῦ κλήρου τιµὴν ἀργυρίου δραχµὰς ὀκτακοσίας ‘because I have received the price of the allotment, consisting of eight hundred silver drachmai.’; P.Lips. II 133.6–7 (AD 37–40): τιµὴν γ̣ῆς σιτο̣φ[ό]ρου κατοικικῶν ἀρουρῶν δύο ‘the price of wheat land consisting of two catoecic arourai’. See also BGU IV 1129.8 (= M.Chr. 254; 13 BC); P.Mich. XI 621.8 (AD 37); BGU II 379.16 (AD 67); P.Rein. II 98.20 (AD 109). In BGU I 282.29 (AD 175–180), a contract for the

(8)

the vendors use πεπράκαµεν ‘we have sold’ instead of παρακεχωρήκαµεν

‘we have ceded’.²⁸ The difference between cession and sale seems to have become irrelevant.²⁹ In the preceding period, however, the limit between cession and sale is normally well marked, and it should help us to under- stand why the procedure, in spite of its intrinsic logic, seems so complicated.

The early steps of the procedure

We have no direct evidence for the earliest period when cleruchic grants were made, presumably by Ptolemy I Soter.³⁰ Transmission of crown pos- sessions, however, is indirectly attested in the mid-third century through a prohibition from claiming cession of the so-called σταθµοί (lodgings as- signed to soldiers) without the king’s prior consent. In a series of six royal ordinances, Ptolemy II Philadelphos asserted control over the transmission of σταθµοί.³¹ This regulation also provided the holders of σταθµοί with some protection against eviction: the prohibition was directed at those who would claim or receive by cession the σταθµός of an individual after he had been dispossessed of his κλῆρος.

The way in which the king asserted his rights over the σταθµοί bears an analogy with the control he exerted at a later date over the κλῆροι.³²

sale of real estate, the use of τειµῆς (l. τιµ-) καὶ παραχωρητικοῦ ἀργυρίου is explained by the mixed nature of the contract, which includes a house and some κατοικικὴ γῆ. In line 40, however, only τειµήν is used.

28 P.Vind. Bosw. 6.10. Note also line 5: τιµ(ῆς) ἀργυρ(ίου) (δραχµῶν) A ‘a price of 1000 silver drachmai’.

29 According to Yiftach 2015: 135, for most purposes the evolution is complete already in the first century AD: ‘With the Roman occupation, both the restriction on the person of the assignee and on the causes of the conveyance, were lifted. A short prosopography of vendors and purchasers of catoecic land shows that at the latest by the end of the first century CE everyone could acquire and possess it, and nowhere do we ever hear again that the vendor had to account for the reasons that induced him to alienate it.’

30 Crawford 1971: 55.

31 SB VI 9454 (= P.Petr. II 8 = P.Petr. III 20 = W.Chr. 450 = C.Ord. Ptol. 5–10;

Arsinoite nome, issued 267/266 BC, copied after Feb. 10, 245 BC). For a practical consequence of this set of ordinances, see P.Sorb. I 13 (Oxyrhynchos, ca. 260 BC), a petition submitted by an individual who was expelled by three cavalrymen billeted in his house. The petitioner apparently refers to Philadelphos’ ordinances. See Lenger 1980: 385.

32 Fischer-Bovet 2014: 229 notes that ‘(...) the interdictions decreed by Ptolemy II on stathmoi might not have concerned kleroi at all.’

(9)

Philadelphos’ ordinances already display the use of some technical words that will become essential in the procedure of cession of κατοικικὴ γῆ.

Οἰκονοµέω ‘to complete a transaction’ is typical of the vocabulary used in documents relating to the cession of κατοικικὴ γῆ throughout the Ptole- maic and early Roman periods. Παραχώρησις (cession), which appears in the context of the mid-third century BC prohibition, becomes an accepted procedure half a century later: an official contract confirms the cession of a σταθµός already in 201 BC;³³ in the early first century, the same applies to the cession of κλῆροι.³⁴

The κλῆρος mortgaged in 225 BC, mentioned above, together with the proof of the existence of a registration of cession in 217 BC and the contract confirming the cession of a σταθµός in 201 BC, all suggest that soon after Philadelphos’s decree it became necessary to adopt a pragmatic approach: rather than going for outright prohibition, the Ptolemaic state would keep a better control over σταθµοί and κλῆροι by establishing a procedure for cession (παραχώρησις), channeled through the official services that would check and register the transmission of plots. These services would change little over a long period of time and were thus probably in existence already at the end of the third century BC. Due to the conservative nature of these institutions, it will be possible to describe their form on the basis of later documents, some dating from the first century BC, others from the Roman period.

The Edict of Mettius Rufus,

the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων and the Gnomon of the Idios Logos In this relatively consistent administrative environment, the most important change does not take place with the arrival of the Romans in 30 BC, but a few decades later, when the prefect establishes consecutively two record-offices: first the δηµοσία βιβλιοθήκη ‘public record-office’ in the mid-first-century AD, then the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων ‘archive of acquisi- tions, i.e. registry of property’, shortly before AD 72, both at the level of

33 P.Tebt. III.1 820; see Lewis 1989: 313–314, who refers to Rupprecht 1984: 368–369.

34 Cession of κλῆροι appears in a group of contracts and sworn oaths from the Hera- kleopolite nome in the early first century BC, BGU VIII 1731–1740 and XX 2843; in Oxyrhynchus, P.Oxy. XLIX 3482 (73 BC) and XIV 1635 (44–30 BC).

(10)

the nomes.³⁵ This enabled creditors to ascertain their debtors’ liability and enhanced confidence in the credit market, as was recently recognized.³⁶

Some information on the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων comes from an edict issued by the prefect of Egypt Marcus Mettius Rufus in AD 89. This edict is known principally through a quotation made in the minutes of a judicial hearing, the so-called petition of Dionysia, produced around AD 186.³⁷ After the strategos of the Oxyrhynchite nome had informed the prefect that the nome property archive was in a state of serious neglect, Mettius Rufus ordered all owners of property to have their holdings registered anew at the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων. This practice was maintained in the following decades, resulting in declarations for the possession of catoecic land being submitted to the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων.³⁸ In the edict, one passage deserves special attention in the present context.

P.Oxy. II 237 viii 38–39 (Edict of Mettius Rufus; AD 89)

παραγγέλ`λ´ω δὲ καὶ τοῖς

συναλλαγµατογράφοις καὶ τοῖς µνήµοσι µηδὲν δίχα ἐπιστάλµατος τοῦ

βιβλιοφυλακ[ίου τελειῶσαι].

I order also the scribes who prepare contracts and the keepers of records to complete no procedure without a written notice from the record-office.

We shall see below that the ‘written notice’ (ἐπίσταλµα) is an essential part of the procedure; without it, the transmission of cleruchic land could not be confirmed by a formal notarial contract that would guarantee rights of property. When the Romans founded the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων, they stuck to a procedure that was structurally quite close to the former way of transmitting cleruchic land; but from a juridical point of view, their approach was radically different, because it rested on the notion of property, not transmission of the right of use.

Property implied also that the administration of the province had to keep a precise record of all real estate holdings. Therefore, in addition to the obligation to seek the prior approval of the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων, we learn through the Gnomon of the Idios Logos that contracts of sale had to

35 On the δηµοσία βιβλιοθήκη, Wolff 1978: 48. On the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων, Wolff 1978: 49 and 245–255; Cockle 1984; Maresch 2002; Jördens 2015; Yiftach 2015. Burk- halter 1990: 210 places the date of the foundation of the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων between AD 68 and 72.

36 Lerouxel 2012.

37 P.Oxy. II 237 (= M.Chr. 192 = Sel. Pap. II 219 = Meyer Jur. Pap. 59; date of copy later than June 27, AD 186).

38 E.g. SB XVIII 13235 (AD 69–78); BGU XI 2017 (after AD 88) and 2093 (AD 125).

(11)

be recorded in a centralized register of property in Alexandria. This is the so-called Nanaion register, also known as the καταλογεῖον.³⁹

BGU V 1210.221–224 (Gnomon of the Idios Logos, § 100; copied after AD 149)

τοὺς συναλλαγµατογράφ̣ο̣υ̣ς̣ ὡ̣[ρί]σ̣θ̣η̣

[κα]τ̣α̣χ̣ωρίζειν ἐνθάδε ἐπὶ τῆς [πόλεως τὰ]

συναλλάγµατα Θηβαίδος µὲν ἐντὸς ἡµ̣[ερῶν ξ τῶν δὲ λοι]π̣ῶν νοµῶν ἐντὸς λ [αὐτῆς δὲ τ]ῆ̣ς πόλεως ἐντὸς ἡµερῶν ιε.

It was determined that the scribes who prepare contracts must enter them in a register here in the city [i.e. Alexandria], the contracts from the Thebaid within 60 days, those from the other nomes within 30 days, and those from the city within 15 days.

In the following section, we shall examine passages taken from various papyri that will allow us to sketch a more precise outline of the procedure and to establish a general model.

The procedure from the Ptolemaic period till the mid-first century AD

The procedure followed for the transmission of cleruchic land in the Ptole- maic period and in the early first century AD, in spite of many similarities, is not the same as in the later part of the Roman period, after the foundation of the βιβλιοθῆκαι.

1a The holder of cleruchic land submits a request to the controller of καταλοχισµοί⁴⁰

P.Oxy. LXIX 3482.4–6 (contract for cession of catoecic land, 73 BC)

(...) παρακεχωρηκέναι αὐτῶι ἀκολούθως̣ τοῖ̣ς̣ δ̣[ι]ὰ̣ τῶν τὰ ἱππικὰ χειριζόντων ᾠκονοµηµένοις ἀφʼ οὗ ὁ Θέων δέδωκεν ὑποµνήµατος Εὐδαίµονι τῶι πρὸς κατα̣λ̣οχισµοῖς (...)

(Theon acknowledges that he) has ceded to (Dionysios), in accordance with the transaction completed through the persons in charge of the cavalrymen’s affairs, on the basis of the request which Theon submitted to Eudaemon,

controller of enrollments (...)

39 Wolff 1978: 28; Burkhalter 1990: 211 and 216, where she dates the creation of the Nanaion to the reign of Augustus. Cockle 1984: 117 only states that, on the basis of P.Fam.

Tebt. 29, the Nanaion was already in existence in AD 100.

40 The numbering provided here corresponds to the model that will be presented below.

(12)

For the holder of cleruchic land who wished to transmit his plot to someone else, the first step consisted in submitting a request to the controller of enrollments, ὁ πρὸς (τοῖς) καταλοχισµοῖς. Originally, this person was in charge of the rosters of military units, as the word seems to indicate: the verb καταλοχίζω means ‘to enroll in a λόχος, a military unit’.⁴¹ Philadel- phos’ ordinances, mentioned above, indicate that cases of cession (παρα- χώρησις) were under the direct authority of the king, who obviously could not handle them by himself. We therefore should assume that this task was delegated to the controller of καταλοχισµοί. His office, centralized in Alexandria during the Ptolemaic period and decentralized in the nomes in the Roman period, remained in existence till the third century AD, although its function must have been gradually limited to keeping the records of plots of cleruchic land and collecting a tax.

The phrasing used in 73 BC in the passage quoted above finds an almost exact parallel in AD 18, and again in 93, which confirms the conservative character of the procedure on the formal side, although the legal construction was not the same anymore.⁴² This is an important point for the reconstruction that is offered here, because in some cases it allows us to bridge some gaps in the procedure of the Ptolemaic period by resorting to an analogy with a later period. For instance, although a request (ὑπό- µνηµα) is indirectly mentioned in P.Oxy. LXIX 3482, no such document from the Ptolemaic period is preserved. As we move beyond the mid-first century, when the record-offices (βιβλιοθῆκαι) were established, we shall

41 Kunkel 1928: n303: ‘Die καταλοχισµοί sind keine Fertigungslisten gewesen (...), son- dern aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach Inhaberfolien, in denen die Katoeken einer jeder Truppe mit ihrem Landbesitz aufgeführt waren.’ A definition is provided by Arrian in his Taktika 5.2: πρῶτον µὲν δὴ καὶ µέγιστον [τὸν] ἐν στρατηγίᾳ ἔργον παραλαβόντα πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων ἀθρόον καὶ ἄτακτον ἐς τάξιν καὶ κόσµον καταστῆσαι· τὸ δ’ ἔστιν καταλοχίσαι τε καὶ ξυλλοχίσαι ‘The first and most important task in a military campaign is, when one has received a crowd of men both numerous and disorderly, to set it in orderly ranks; this is what is meant by enrolling (katalochisai) and incorporating (xullochisai)’. The practice seems to go back at least to the time of Alexander’s expedition, see Arr. Anab. 7.6.3: οἱ Βακτρίων δὲ καὶ οἱ Σογδιανῶν καὶ Ἀραχωτῶν ἱππεῖς καὶ Ζαραγγῶν δὲ καὶ Ἀρείων καὶ Παρθυαίων καὶ ἐκ Περσῶν οἱ Εὐάκαι καλούµενοι ἱππεῖς καταλοχισθέντες εἰς τὴν ἵππον τὴν ἑταιρικήν (...) ‘The cavalrymen of Bactrians, of Sogdianians and of Arachotians, and cavalrymen of Zarangians, of Arians, of Parthians and of the Persians called Euakai, enrolled into the cavalry of (Alexander’s) companions (...)’.

42 PSI IV 320.5–7 (AD 18): ἀκολούθ[ω]ς τοῖς ᾠκονοµηµένοις δ[ιὰ] τῶν ἐκ τοῦ ἱππικοῦ, ἀφʼ οὗ ἐπιδέδωκεν ὁ Ἀριστόπους ὑποµνήµατο̣ς̣ Εὐδαίµονι; PSI VIII 897 i 8–10 (AD 93):

ἀκολ̣[ού]θως τοῖς ᾠκο[νοµηµένοις διὰ τῶν ἐκ το]ῦ ἱππικοῦ ἀ̣φ̣ʼ ο̣ὗ ἐ[πιδέδωκεν ἡ ὁµολο- γοῦσα ὑπο]µ̣νήµατο̣ς̣ τοῖς ̣[ ̣ ̣].

(13)

find two requests (BGU II 379 and P.Lond. II 300, below 2αa) that will give us an idea, in retrospect, of what the Ptolemaic application may have looked like.

1b The controller of καταλοχισµοί instructs the ἱππικὸν λογιστήριον to proceed with the µετεπιγραφή

We have seen above that, already in 217 BC, registration (ἐπιγραφή) was a condition for transmission of cleruchic land from a father to his son.

Further transmission required a change of registration (µετεπιγραφή). The controller of καταλοχισµοί, on behalf of the king, gave instructions to the record-office of cavalry (ἱππικὸν λογιστήριον) to proceed with the µετεπι- γραφή.⁴³ The controller of καταλοχισµοί kept a logbook where he recorded all changes made to the register.

P.Köln V 227 B.4–6 (logbook of the καταλοχισµοί, AD 12/13)

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] λόγου Λεωνίδου τοῦ Εἰρην̣αίου Μακ(εδὼν) (ἐτῶν) λζ µέσο(ς) µελίχ(ρως) µακ(ροπρόσωπος) εὐθ(ύριν) [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ω̣ι ( ]π̣

ed.) δ̣εξιῶι `τῆς γ (ἱππαρχίας) τῶν

(ἑκατονταρούρων) τόµ(ος) α σελ(ὶς) ἐν τοῖς τὸ λε (ἔτος) Καίσαρος´· µετεπιγέγραπται ἃς τυγχάνει ἐωνηµένος ἐξ ὑπολόγου [πε]ρ̣ὶ̣

Νείλου πόλιν τῆς Ἡρακλείδου µερίδος κλήρου σιτοφόρου (ἀρούρας) ο. (δραχµαὶ) κδ (τετρώβολον).

(...) account of Leonides son of Eirenaios, Macedonian, 37 years old, of medium height, honeycoloured, elongated face, straight nose, (scar on the) right (...), of the 3^rd hipparchy, in the category of those who hold 100 arourai, roll 1, column among the entries of the 35^th year of Caesar (Augustus): he has entered a change of registration for the 70 (arourai) that he purchased from land with reduced income near Neilopolis, in the district of Herakleides, 70 arourai of wheat land. 24 drachmai and 4 obols.

At the end of this entry, the 24 drachmai and 4 obols must correspond to a fee paid by Leonides. This implies that the ‘tax for the change of registration’ (τέλος µετεπιγραφῆς), which is well attested in the second and early third centuries AD, existed already before the βιβλιοθῆκαι were founded.

It seems likely that the tax was collected as soon as the procedure of µετ- επιγραφή was introduced in the Ptolemaic period.

Another tax that we find later in the second and third centuries AD is the ‘tax on recognition’ (τέλος γνωστείας), imposed on those who took

43 BGU VIII 1731.9 (67 BC) and 1732.3 (80–30 BC): ἱππικὸν λογιστήριον. P.Dub. 3.4–

5 (AD 14/15): οἱ ἐκ τοῦ ἱππικοῦ. P.Oxy. XLIX 3482.5 (73 BC): οἱ τὰ ἱππικὰ χειρίζοντες.

(14)

over cleruchic land by inheritance. P.Köln V 227 indicates that this part of the procedure also existed in AD 12/13. The concept of γνωστεία goes back at least to the mid-first century BC, when a woman is recognized (ἐγνωστευµένη) as the legitimate successor of her deceased father and takes over his cleruchic plot.⁴⁴ P.Köln V 227 also provides us with the explanation for the lexical choice of γνωστεία: this procedure required the presence of a witness (γνωστήρ).⁴⁵

The record-office of cavalry was headed by one or two officials called

‘controller of the arrangement of catoecic cavalrymen’ (ὁ πρὸς τῇ συν- τάξει τῶν κατοίκων ἱππέων).⁴⁶ In the absence of a fully developed system of registration of property, which was established by the Romans only in the mid-first century AD, one of the tasks that befell the controller of arrangement was to ensure that the cession of cleruchic land was properly recorded by the nome’s royal scribe (βασιλικὸς γραµµατεύς).

P.Tebt. I 30.15–20 (= W.Chr. 233; correspondance concerning a change of ownership, 115 BC)⁴⁷

Πτολεµαίωι καὶ Ἑστιείωι τοῖς πρώτοις φίλοις καὶ πρὸς τῆι συν[τά]ξει παρὰ Διδυµάρχου τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου Μακεδόνος τῆς ε ἱπ(παρχίας) τῶν (ἑκατονταρούρων).

παρακεχωρηµένου µου ὑπὸ Πέτ[ρ]ωνος τοῦ Θέωνος Πέρσου τῆς αὐτῆς ἱππαρχίας τὸν ὑπάρχοντʼ αὐτῶι κλῆρον περὶ Κερκεοσῖριν τῆς [Πο]λέµωνος µερίδος (ἀρουρῶν) κδ, τῶν δὲ πρὸς ταῖς γραµµατείαις ἀγνοούντων τὴν γεγονυῖαν περὶ ἐ[µο]ῦ οἰκονοµίαν καὶ ⟦ ̣ ̣⟧

ἔτι ἀναγράφουσι τὸν κλῆρον εἰς τὸν Πέτρωνα, ἀξιῶ συντάξαι γράψαι

Ἀπολλ[ω]νίωι τῶι βασιλικῶι γραµµατεῖ ἵνʼ

To Ptolemaios and Hestieios, of the rank of first friends, controllers of the arrangement, from Didymarchos son of Apollonios, Macedonian of the 5^th hipparchy, in the category of those who hold 100 arourai. I have had ceded to me by Petron son of Theon, Persian of the same hipparchy, the plot that belongs to him near Kerkeosiris in the district of Polemon, 24 arourai. Since the head- secretaries are ignorant of this transaction completed on my behalf, and they still register the plot under the name of

44 SB VIII 9790.6–9 (= Rowlandson 1998, n° 167): ἐγνωστευµένη ἐπὶ ταῖς ἀπολελειµ- µέναις ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀ̣π̣ὸ̣ τοῦ κλήρου (...) ἀρού(ραις) κ ‘having been recognized (as the successor) to the 20 arourai left by my father from his plot’. See also P.Erl. 59.15 (= SB XX 14997; 70 or 41 BC): γνωστευθεῖσαν ἐπʼ ἀρούραις τρισίν ‘having been recognized (as legitimate successor) to three arourai’.

45 P.Köln V 227 B 23: γνωστὴ(ρ) Ἰσχυρίων Ἀφροδισίου (followed by his personal data of identification).

46 For the full title, P.Tebt. I 30.6–7, often shortened elsewhere to ὁ πρὸς τῇ συντάξει.

47 See also P.Tebt. I 31 (112 BC) and IV 1100 (= P.Tebt. I 239 descr.; 114 BC). Both documents belong to the archive of Menches, village scribe of Kerkeosiris; see Verhoogt 1998.

(15)

`ε´ἰδὼς ἀναγράφηι εἰς µὲ τὰς σηµαινοµένας (ἀρούρας) κδ ἵνʼ ὦ τετευχὼς [φιλ]ανθρωπίας.

Petron, I ask you to order that a letter be written to Apollonios, royal secretary, so that, once he has received knowledge of this, he register the said 24 arourai under my name, so that I may benefit from your kindness.

The recording procedure, if there was one, was looser than the system established by the Romans. Here, the royal secretary is apparently una- ware of a cession that took place under the authority of the καταλοχισµοί.

Interestingly, this is a rare case in the Ptolemaic period where the new holder of a plot takes an active part in the procedure, except for the contract of cession (1c, below).

In the Ptolemaic or early Roman period, we do not have any note from the controller of καταλοχισµοί instructing the record-office to proceed with the µετεπιγραφή. P.Tebt. I 30, however, implies such a note; and we shall see below (2αb) that this step in the procedure may be preserved in the later Roman period.

The two passages quoted below reflect a consistent procedure. In one case, the record-office is called ἱππικὸν λογιστήριον, in the other, οἱ καταλοχισµοὶ τῶν κατοίκων, but we may assume that these are two levels of the same office, where it is implied that the controller of καταλοχισµοί has instructed the ἱππικὸν λογιστήριον to proceed with the µετεπιγραφή.

BGU VIII 1733.5–6 (contract of cession, 80–30 BC)

(...) ε[ὐδο]κ̣εῖ[ν τ]ῇ γεγονυίᾳ τῷ Διονυσίῳ [δ]ιὰ τοῦ ἱππικοῦ λογιστηρίου µετεπ[ιγ]ραφῇ (...).

(Philon ... acknowledges ...) that he agrees to the change of registration that was made in favour of Dionysios through the record-office of cavalry (...).

P.Mich. V 232.16–17 (= SB V 7568; petition to an exegetes, AD 34/35)

(...) ἀφ’ ἧς ἐποιήσαντο ἐν τῶι κα (ἔτει) Τιβερίου Καίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ διὰ τῶν καταλοχισµῶν τῶν κατοίκω̣ν µετεπιγραφῆς (...)

(...) from the change of registration which they made in the 21^st year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus through the enrollments of the katoikoi (...)

The µετεπιγραφή corresponds only to a change of allotment; for this to be translated into rights of use, a contract must be prepared by a notarial office (ἀγορανοµεῖον), on the prior condition that the controller of κατα- λοχισµοί issue a written notice (ἐπίσταλµα). This word is attested, in con- nection with the καταλοχισµοί, in AD 48, at a time when the record-

(16)

offices (δηµοσία βιβλιοθήκη, then βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων) have not yet come into existence.

P.Mich. V 353.16–18 (guarantee of immunity, AD 48)

(...) ἐπίσταλµα τῶν προόντων κ[α]ταλοχιζµῶν (l. -σµῶν) (...)

(...) written instruction of the prior enrollments (...)

This document belongs to a small dossier consisting of three items that cannot be discussed in detail.⁴⁸ The ἐπίσταλµα was issued by the κατα- λοχισµοί in AD 37; for an unspecified reason, it was lost and therefore the registration of a παραχώρησις was blocked by the notarial office.⁴⁹ The word ἐπίσταλµα (or the verb ἐπιστέλλω) does not appear in the Ptolemaic period in the context of the transmission of cleruchic land. It is possible that the concept preceded the word and that the latter was introduced only shortly after the arrival of the Romans in Egypt, as illustrated by the following two examples.

BGU XVI 2656.7–11 (private letter, 30 BC – AD 14)

καὶ σὺ οὖν καλῶς πο<ί>ησ<ε>ις µετ[ρεῖν]

ἐνταῦθα παρʼ ἐµοῦ µετρει (l. µέτρῳ) δ̣ι̣καίῳ, κοµισάµενος πα̣ρὰ̣ το[ῦ] αὐτοῦ µαχαιροφόρου τὸ ἐπίσταλµα.

And you too, please take delivery here (of the oil) from me, measured out in just measure, after you have received the written notice from the same police officer.

P.Oxy. LXXVIII 5165.2–4 (order to a banker, 24 BC)

χρηµάτισον Μύ̣ρµη̣κι ἀφ’ οὗ ἔχεις µου ἐπιστάλµατος ἀργυρίου τριακ(οσίας) (...).

Pay to Myrmex, on the basis of the written notice you receive from me, three hundred drachmai.

The latter passage seems especially relevant to illustrate the use of ἐπίσταλµα with the meaning of ‘written instruction’ as prior condition for a payment to be made by a banker.

48 P.Mich. XI 621 (communication to a νοµογράφος, AD 37); P.Mich. V 326 (division of inherited land and slaves, AD 48); P.Mich. V 353 (guarantee of immunity, AD 48).

49 See also P.Mich. XI 621.11–12: διὰ τὼ{ι} καταλελοχίσθαι αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀρουρῶν διὰ τοῦ τῶν καταλοχισµῶν λογιστηρίου ‘since he was registered as owner of the same arourai through the registry of the enrollments’.

(17)

1c The notarial office (ἀγορανοµεῖον) drafts a contract (ὁµολογία) Once he has received the ἐπίσταλµα, a scribe in a notarial office may prepare the contract by which the cession will be translated into rights of use.

BGU VIII 1736.9–12 (oath for the cession of cleruchic land, 78 BC)

(...) ποιήσειν σοί τε καὶ τοῖς] π̣α̣ρ̣ὰ̣ σ̣ο̣ῦ̣

[πάν]τ̣α τὰ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ὁµολογίου συ[γγραφήν, ἣν τέθειµαί σοι διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ] ἀγο[ραν]οµίου, καθʼ ἣν ἐξωµολόγηµα[ι εὐδοκεῖν τῆι γεγονυίᾳ σοι µετεπιγ]ραφῆι ἀπὸ τοῦ κλήρου µου (...)

(I swear that) Ι shall act towards you and your descendants on every point in accordance with the contract of agreement, which I have made with you through the same notarial office, according to which I have agreed to accept the change of registration from my allotment that was made in your favour (...)

The wording of this contract is fairly consistent with the other documents published as BGU VIII 1731–1740, from the Herakleopolite nome, and also with a sworn cession of catoecic land from Oxyrhynchos, P.Oxy. LV 3777 (57 BC). A recent addition to this ensemble is to be found in BGU XX 2843 (Herakleopolite nome, 72 BC).

The new holder of the plot must now pay the amount required for this transfer. This can be done through a bank, as shown by a payment order from the early first century AD.

P.Lips. II 133.1–12 (payment order, AD 37–40)

ἀντί[γρ]αφον διαγραφῆς διὰ τ(ῆς) Ἰάσον[ος] τοῦ Ἀρείου κολλ(υβιστικῆς) τρα(πέζης) (ἔτους) [ ̣] Γ̣α̣[ίου Καίσα]ρ̣ο̣ς̣

Σεβαστ̣ο̣ῦ̣ Γερµαν̣[ι]κο(ῦ) Χοιὰχ ιδ.

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] Διογένο[υς ἱ]π̣πεὺς ἄλας Ἀπρ̣[ιανῆς] τ̣ο̣ύρµης [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣τος Λυσιµάχῳ Καλλισ[τ]ράτου τιµὴν γ̣ῆς σιτο̣φ[ό]ρου κατοικικῶν ἀρουρῶν δύο τῶν ο[ὐ]σῶν περὶ Φιλαδέλφειαν τῆς Ἡρακλεί̣δου µερίδος τοῦ Ἀρσινοείτου νοµοῦ ἀκολού̣[θ]ως καὶ τῇ τετελειωµένῃ διὰ τ̣[οῦ] ἐν Ἰουλιοπόλει ἀγορανοµίου ἀσ[φαλ]είᾳ ἀργυρίου δρα(χµὰς) ψ.

Copy of a payment made through the money-change bank of Jason son of Areios, in year (...) of Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Choiak 14. (...) son of Diogenes, cavalryman of the Ala Apriana, unit of (...), to Lysimachos son of Kallistratos, price of wheat land, two catoecic arourai located near

Philadelphia, in the Herakleides district of the Arsinoite nome, in accordance with the contract that was established through the notarial office in Iouliopolis, for 700 silver drachmai.

These two arourai of κατοικικὴ γῆ are taken over by a cavalryman of a Roman auxiliary unit. It cannot be excluded that, in the first decades of the Roman period, a certain degree of correspondance between military status

(18)

and possession of catoecic land was encouraged by the authorities.⁵⁰ Note also that, instead of quoting a ‘capital for cession’ (παραχωρητικὸν κεφά- λαιον), the scribe mentioned a ‘price’ (τιµή).

It is time to summarize the result achieved so far. When the early Ptole- mies established a procedure for the transmission of cleruchic land, this was for the most part an aspect of army management: a military office kept records of land plots, one commodity among others that allowed the army to function as smoothly as possible. The basic procedure used for transmitting a plot of cleruchic land must have looked like this:

1a 1b 1c

original holder ὑπόµνηµα

→ καταλοχισµοί ἐπίσταλµα

↕

ἱππικὸν λογιστήριον (σύνταξις)

µετεπιγραφή τέλος µετεπιγραφῆς

→ ἀγορανοµεῖον ὁµολογία

The original holder submits a request (1a ὑπόµνηµα) to the relevant office of the enrollment (1b καταλοχισµοί), asking to be allowed to step aside in favour of a new occupant. The controller of καταλοχισµοί checks the request, then forwards it to the record-office for cavalrymen (ἱππικὸν λογιστήριον, headed by the controller of the σύνταξις), together with a note of confirmation (ἐπίσταλµα). At the ἱππικὸν λογιστήριον, registration of the plot is changed from the original holder to the new one (µετε- πιγραφή). A fee (τέλος µετεπιγραφῆς) is charged to the new holder of the plot.

This simple procedure does not correspond to a sale, but only to a transfer of attribution of crown land. When our first contracts of cession of cleruchic land appear in the early first century BC, they start introducing the notion of property, which was absent from the prior concept. From this time onward, the µετεπιγραφή requires, in addition, a contract (1c ὁµο- λογία), prepared by a notarial office (ἀγορανοµεῖον).

This model works from the early first century BC (when our first contracts of sale of cleruchic land appear) till the mid-first century AD (when the βιβλιοθῆκαι are founded). Hereafter, our documents show that the procedure, while retaining many of its formal aspects, underwent a deep

50 Kiessling 1938: 223–224 and 229. More on this point in the conclusion below.

(19)

change, especially as regards the role played by the καταλοχισµοί. We must now examine this point in closer detail.

The procedure in the Roman period

In the new period initiated by the foundation of the record-offices in the mid-first century AD, cleruchic land is normally designated as catoecic land (κατοικικὴ γῆ) in the available sources. This small change of nomen- clature corresponds, on the administrative side, to a major modification in the transmission of catoecic land. Whereas the procedure followed in the Ptolemaic period was linear, the new controls introduced by the Roman authorities meant that the concerned parties had to undergo parallel proce- dures through at least three different offices before they could sign a contract in a notarial office (ἀγορανοµεῖον): 2α obtain a written notice (ἐπίσταλµα) from a record-office at the nome level (βιβλιοθήκη); 2β complete a registration (καταχωρισµός) of the cession by the central archive in Alexandria (καταλογεῖον); 2γ request a change of registration (µετεπιγραφή) from the ancient register of the enrollment (καταλοχισµοί).

2αa The holder of catoecic land submits a request (ὑπόµνηµα) to the registry of property (βιβλιοθήκη)

In the above description of the Ptolemaic procedure (1a), a request (ὑπό- µνηµα) was mentioned, which the applicant had to submit before he would be allowed to cede a plot, but we lacked an example of such a document. For the first century AD, we are fortunate to have two requests, addressed to the successive record-offices in charge of checking the credentials of the holder of a plot.

BGU II 379.2–4, 9 and 17–19 (= M.Chr. 219 = FIRA III 105 = Meyer Jur.

Pap. 63; request for a cession, AD 67)

Δίωι καὶ Πρωτογένει γεγυµνασιαρχηκόσι βιβλιοφύλαξι τῆς ἐν Ἀρσινο(είτῃ) δηµο(σίας) βιβ[λιοθ(ήκης) π]αρὰ Σ̣ε̣λ̣εύκου καὶ Πτολλᾶτος (...).

To Dios and Protogenes, former

gymnasiarchs, record-keepers of the public record-office in the Arsinoite nome, from Seleukos and Ptollas (...).

βουλόµεθα παραχωρῆσαι (...) We want to cede (...) διὸ προσαγγέλλο[µεν], ὅπως ἐπιστείλητε

τῷ τὸ γραφῖον (l. -φεῖον) Καραν[ίδος]

<ἀσχολουµένῳ> συνχρηµατίζε(ιν) ἡµεῖν

therefore we make this declaration, so that you may send a note to the <person in charge of> the notarial office of Karanis,

(20)

ὡς καθήκ(ει). asking him to assist us in completing the procedure in a fitting manner.

Shortly after BGU II 379 was written, the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων was founded. The following request looks very much the same, but it is addressed to the new registry of property.

P.Lond. II 300.2–5, 9 and 15–16 (p. 151; request for a cession, AD 129)

Διονυσίωι καὶ Θέωνι γ̣ε̣γ̣υ(µνασιαρχηκόσι) βιβλιο(φύλαξι) ἐνκτή(σεων) Ἀρσι(νοίτου) παρὰ Γαίου Οὐαλερίου Μαίορος (...)

To Dionysios and Theon, former gymnasiarchs, keepers of the registry of property of the Arsinoite nome, from Gaius Valerius Maior (...)

βούλοµαι παραχωρῆσαι (...) I want to cede (...) διὸ ἐπιδίδωµι ὅπως ἐπ̣ι̣στάληι ὡς

καθή[κει].

therefore I submit (this request), to be forwarded in the appropriate manner.

In both cases, the verbs ἐπιστείλητε and ἐπ̣ι̣στάληι must correspond to the required ἐπίσταλµα mentioned in the Edict of Mettius Rufus. We had seen above, with P.Oxy. LXXVIII 5165 (24 BC), that the concept of ἐπίσταλµα was in use at least since the first century BC. Here, BGU II 379 (AD 67) indirectly confirms that the prefect Mettius Rufus, in his edict of AD 89, did not innovate, but merely applied a common procedure to the recently created βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων.

2αb The registry (βιβλιοθήκη) issues a written note of confirmation (ἐπίσταλµα)

It seems that the δηµοσία βιβλιοθήκη played the role of a record-office of property only for a few years, before the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων was established, in order to ensure that the property rights were always registered correctly and kept up to date. If land was used as security for a loan, this had to be inscribed in the registers too. The basic purpose that lay behind this institution was clearly stated in the Edict of Mettius Rufus: ἵνα οἱ συναλλάσσοντες µὴ κατʼ ἄ̣γ̣ν̣ο̣ιαν ἐνεδρεύονται (l. -ωνται) ‘in order that those who make contracts with them may not be defrauded through ignorance’.⁵¹

51 P.Oxy. II 237 viii 36. Several recent interpretations have been suggested to explain the creation of the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων: for Maresch 2002, its purpose was to ascertain the actual financial means (πόρος) of those who had to undertake liturgies, i.e. compulsory public service; for Jördens 2010, who follows a paper given by François Lerouxel that resulted in the publication of Lerouxel 2012 (esp. 965–976), precise records of property

(21)

As we shall see, the issuance of an ἐπίσταλµα by the βιβλιοθήκη was only one of the steps required before the notarial office (ἀγορανοµεῖον) could proceed with the contract of cession, which confirmed the new holder’s right of property. On the ἐπίσταλµα, P.Oxy. III 483 is of particular interest: it contains an application (ὑπόµνηµα) to the head of the registry office (presumably the βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων) submitted by the holder of a piece of catoecic land who wished to mortgage it. Just like the transmission to a new holder, mortgaging catoecic land tied an obligation to it. The record-keeper at the βιβλιοθήκη had to first check that the plot was not previously mortgaged, and then record the present mortgage so that the plot would not be transmitted to someone else without a clear knowledge of the obligation.

P.Oxy. III 483.18–21 (= M.Chr. 203; application for leave to mortgage, AD 108)

(...) ἐπιδίδ[ο]µι (l. -δίδωµι) [τ]ὸ ὑπόµν[η]µα ὅπως σ̣ὺ̣ ἐπισ[τείλῃς] τοῖς τῆς µητροπόλεως ἀγορανόµο[ις οὖσι]

καὶ µνήµοσι τελειῶσαι τὸν χρηµα[τισµὸν] ὡς καθήκει (...)

(...) I submit this request in order that you send a written notice to the notaries of the nome-capital, who are also the record- keepers, so that they complete the transaction in the appropriate manner (...)

This corresponds precisely to the procedure that has been described so far for the transmission of catoecic land. At the bottom of the document, the head of the βιβλιοθήκη added a note for the ἀγορανόµοι.

P.Oxy. III 483.32–34

Σαραπίων ὁ σὺν Θέωνι βυβλιοφύλ(αξ) ἀγορανό(µοις) µητ(ρο)πόλ(εως) χα(ίρειν). ἔχει Ἀχιλλᾶς ἐν ἀπογραφῇ τὰς ἀρούρας ἕξ, διὸ ἐπιτελεῖτε ὡς καθήκ(ει).

Sarapion, joint record-keeper with Theon, to the notaries of the metropolis, greetings.

Achillas has the six arourai on the register, therefore complete the transaction in the appropriate manner.

This allows us to define precisely what an ἐπίσταλµα consisted of: the record-keeper added a note at the bottom of the ὑπόµνηµα and handed it back to the holder of the plot, who could then present it to the ἀγορανό- µος. In the case of P.Mich. V 353, mentioned above, the ἐπίσταλµα was lost, thus preventing the ἀγορανόµος from drafting the contract.

enhanced the confidence of those who made a contract, thus encouraging economic activity; it also reduced the potential for conflict between private and public interests in relation with property registered by the βιβλιοθήκη.