Notes on the delian farm accounts - article ; n°1 ; vol.63, pg 232-245

John Harveykent

Description

Bulletin de correspondance hellénique - Année 1939 - Volume 63 - Numéro 1 - Pages 232-245
14 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: BULLETIN_DE_CORRESPONDANCE_HELLENIQUE
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1939
• Nombre de lectures: 22
• Langue: English

Extrait

John Harvey Kent
Notes on the delian farm accounts
In: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 63, 1939. pp. 232-245.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Kent John Harvey. Notes on the delian farm accounts. In: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 63, 1939. pp. 232-
245.
doi : 10.3406/bch.1939.2682
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/bch_0007-4217_1939_num_63_1_2682NOTES ON THE DELIAN FARM ACCOUNTS
revision follows estates. portions and Early by : the This in of the my authorities task year inscriptions readings occupied 1939 of was I the was of made Delos French generously months in that School February, of contain permitted June, at Athens the July, 1940. records by and The M. to Pierre August, examine results of the Roussel temple are and those as a
I. — I. G., XI, 2
No. 135, 1. 16 : ΡΡΡΔΔΗΗΚ — It has already been suggested (1) that
hF-H should be corrected to Phh This amount actually appears on the
stone. Read ΡΡΡΔΔΡΙ-Κ
No. 142, 1. 2 : ΛΡ IHNA. This has been read by M. Lacroix (2)
"Αρχ[ανδρον 'Ιπποδρόμου το έπαναβληθέν (?) ]ΙΗΡΔ. But the horizontal
stroke for the last letter was never cut, and the third letter of APX is very
doubtful. Nor does the restoration seem acceptable, for not only does it
fail to fill the required space, but we know of no instance in which το
έπαναβληθέν was paid when the regular rental of the estate was not. Read
ΑΡΑ IHNA. Attempt at restoration seems hopeless.
Ib., 1. 4 : ..Δ.Αστίαν Lacroix reads .ΔΔ. Άστίαν. But the name of the
tenant is clearly engraved with an epsilon. Read ΔΔΔ · Άστέαν.
On the meaning of το έπαναβληθέν. This phrase has been variously
interpreted. The earliest opinion is that of Durrbach, who believed that
the expression meant « deferred payment ». It implies that the rental of
the preceding year had not been paid in full, and that the balance still
outstanding was paid in the following year (3). More recently Lacroix has
(1) Garth, S.E. G., 1,340.
(2) BCH, LVI (1932), pp. 372, 374.
(3)XXXV, 1911, pp. 24-25. NOTES ON THE DELIAN FARM ACCOUNTS 233
concluded that the phrase signifies an « advance deposit », which was paid
by the tenant who wished to renew his lease in the following year with a
10 per cent, increase of rental (1). A further examination of the evidence
seems to show that the view of Durrbach is correct.
The phrase το έπαναβληθέν can scarcely have meant anything other than
« deferred payement ». For the expression clearly refers not to the future
but to the past, and the Greek language has other ways of expressing
« advanced deposit ». In the law-courts an advance deposit was known
as ή παρακαταβολή, while in the sphere of business the term άρραβών was used.
The word θέσις also occurs occasionally in this sense (2). It therefore
seems almost incredible that, had the meaning « advance deposit » been
intended so misleading an expression as το έπαναβληθέν would have been
employed.
Lacroix's interpretation rests mainly on the fact that το έπαναβληθέν
was paid by the lessees of Chareteia and Limnai, and No. 144 shows that
the leases of these estates were subsequently renewed with a 10 per cent,
increase of rental. But this fact loses some of its significance when it is
observed that nine of the thirteen estates of No. 144 are probably
renewals (3). Furthermore, while Lacroix has shown that the rental of
Nikou Choros was probably increased to 501 dr. before No. 144, he has also
shown that the rent of this estate was only 420 dr. in the year in which
the payment of το έπαναβληθέν was made. This is enough to demonstrate
that the payment was not confined to tenants who subsequently renewed
their leases.
Durrbach's interpretation also receives support from the actual sums
of money that were paid. We would expect an advance deposit to be either
a fixed sum for all estates alike, or else a sum proportional to the amount
of rent. But the rent of Limnai was 600 dr., and το έπαναβληθέν only 20 dr.,
whereas the figures for Nikou Ghoros are 420 dr. and 56 dr. Additional
(1) Op. cil., p. 374-377. A third interpretation is implied in Glotz's restoration of the rent
of Nikou Choros, ΗΗΗΗΔΔ[ΔΔΡ]· το έπαναβληθέν ΡΡ(- *, which if correct would mean that
the annual rental was paid in two instalments. However, it is clear from the rentals of other
estates that το έπαναβληθέν cannot mean « the second instalment », and Lacroix (p. 376) has
shown that the restoration is itself unsound.
(2) παρακαταβολή : Demost. 49, 46 ; Isocr. 20, 2 ; cf. Bonner and Smith, Administration of
Justice from Homer to Aristotle, vol. I, p. 40.
άρραβών: Antiphon 1, 23, 6 ; Isaeus 8, 20 ; Arist. Pol. 1259, a, 12, cf. Inscriptiones Orae Seplen-
Iriones Ponii Euxini, 12, 32, B, 34 (Olbia).
θέσις : Demos. 33, 12 ; Lysias 8, 10.
(3) The rentals of only four estates, Porthmos, Panormos, Charoneia, and Leimon are indivisible
by eleven. See the table of the rentals below, p. 235, footnote 2. 234 J. H. KENT
evidence in Durrbach's favour can also be found in a list of payments of
debts and loans whose date is approximately 285 B. C, in which there
appears the words τον ένιαυτον του έπαναβληθέντος αύτώι (1). The line seems
to refer to a debt arising from non-payment of το έπαναβλήθέν which can
be explained only by assuming that in the year previous to No. 142 rentals
were not paid in full, and tenants were expected to pay the balance in
the following year.
No. 144, A. 1. 9-17.
και ταδ' έπρά[ξ]αμ[εν] έν[η]ρ[όσ]ια ' vac.
10. [Σο]λό[ης] Καλλ'.[κλής (?) ] h ' Λε(ι)μώνος Θεοδωρίδης Έπικράτ[ο]υς
<ι> ΡΗ · Φοινίκων "Ερμων ΧΗ " του Ίπποδ[ρό]μ[ου]
Ά[ρ]ι[στέας Άρ]ιστέου Χ [A]hh ' Πορθμού Άντικράτης Ξενομήδ[ο]υς Χ[Ρ]
ΗΡΗ[|-|-·Χ]αρ[η]τείας Νίκανδρος
[Ξενομήδ (?)]ους ΧΧΗΗΗΗΡΔΔΡ · Πανόρμου Μαισιάδης Ήρακλείδου
ΡΗΗΗΗΔ[Δ]Ρ · Λιμνών Γνωσίδικος
[Ήρακλείδου (?)] ΡΗΡΔ ' 'Ράμνους έγλίποντος Χίονος άνεμισθώσαμεν *
Διονυσίου Πασίτιμος ΧΗ[Η]ΗΔ[ΔΗ]
[III]CT// · Φί]λαρχος Δεξικράτους τής Σκιτωνείας ΡΗΗΡΔΔΗ-H-IIC·
Χαρωνείας Έρμόδοτος Άριστέ[ου]
15. ΧΡ · Ή [ρ]ώδης Θεοδώρου της έμ Πύργοις ΧΗΗΡΔΔΔΔΠΙ-ΗΙ- · ]Νίκου Χώρου
Αύτοσθένης ΡΡΗθ<κ>
Λυκωνεί[ου] Λ[υ]σ[ίξεν]ος 'Αριστοβούλου Η HPH-hh ' κεφάλα to ν ένηρο-
σίων ών είσεπράξαμεν ΤΤΧΧΗΗΗ
ΔΔΔΡΗΙ-]Ι-Η. vac.
L. 1 0 : ΜΙΒΛΛ ΛΕ. The stone reads . . ΛΟ . ΑΛΛΙ γΛΕ,
which can only be the record of Soloe, since it is the only farm that is
not accounted for elsewhere.
L. 11 : I agree with Schulhof that the space at the beginning of this
line is not great enough to contain the name 'Αριστείδης, and with
Lacroix (2) that the rent is Χ[Δ]ΗΙ-.
L. 13 : PH h Lacroix correctly reads. ΡΗΡΔ (3).
L. 15 : XPP[ ]. The stone contains XPH . -Ο-ΔΗΣ.
(1) No. 156, A, 1. 14.
(2) BCH, XLVIII (1924), p. 401.
(3)LVI (1932), p. 374. NOTES ON THE DELIAN FARM ACCOUNTS 235
L. 16 : The reading H HPhl-Hl· is very clear.
L. 17 : There is no indication of a second obol.
The total of the rentals whose readings are certain is 10,654 dr. 3 1/12 ob.,
whereas the total of all the rents was 14,339 dr. 1 ob. The balance of
3684 dr. 3 ll/12ob. must therefore have been paid by the estates of Soloe,
Rhamnoi, Porthmos, and Dionysion. The rents of the latter two estates
are reasonably certain. From No. 149, I. 9, we may prefer [P] to [H] in
the rental of Porthmos, and the sum of 1653 dr. seems entirely probable.
The recovery of the digit C near the beginning of 1. 14 shows that the
rent of Dionysion contained a fractional sum of obols,and it seems reaso
nable to assign the whole 3 11/12 ob. to this estate. Its rent thus lay
between 1312 dr. and 1331 dr., and was most probably 1321 dr. 3 11/12 ob.,
since this sum represents a 10 per cent, increase of 1201 dr. 3 ob., and
fractions of ûbols in farm rents are usually caused by 10 per cent, increases
of previous rent.
If these two rentals be accepted, the balance that remains is 710 dr.
This sum is altogether too large for the rental of Soloe alone (1), and so
we must conclude that Rhamnoi also contributed rent during the year.
This payement was doubtless recorded in No. 144, B, 1. 79, but the amount
is unfortunately not preserved (2).
No. 146, 1. 9 : . ..ι]ππο[υ παρά ]οσ[...Φο]ι νίκων. Gerth has
restored Ί]ππο[δρόμου (3).
Read . ..]του Ίππο[δ]ο[όμ]ου X[...] ' παρά Π[ί,στοξ (?)]ενου [Φ]οινίχαν·
/δ., 1. 10 : ΧΗΗΙΙ. — Read XHh · vac.
Ib., 1. 11 : Η [·..]. — ■ There is room on the stone for two digits only.
Read HH. The sum of 220 dr. given for Lykoneion in No. 149, 1. 3, repre
sents a renewal of the lease with a 10 per cent, increase of rental.
(1) The known rents of Soloe before 290 B. C. are 240 dr. (135, 1. 5), 330 dr. (142, 11. 5-9) and
321 dr. (149, 1. 3).
(2) The rentals of the year may be tabulated thus :
dr. ob. dr. ob.
» Soloe ca. 301 (?) Rhamnoi ca. 409 (?)
Leimon 600 Dionysion 321 3 11/12
Phoinikes 1 100 Skitoneia 774 2 1/2
» Hippodrome 1 012 Charoneia 050
» Porthmos 1 653 Pyrgoi 298
N.ikou Choros 551 Chareteia 2 475 7/12
Lykoneion 209 Panormos 925
Limnai 600