EULOGIOS' CELL

The earlier set of documents consists of three deeds from the early sixth century CE: P. Dubl. 32, 33, and 34.¹¹ They all concern sales of a monastic dwelling in Labla, on the outskirts of Arsinoe.¹² According to the excavation

¹⁰ The Byzantine legal practice does not distinguish between a conventional and possessory pledge (Faustpfand and Hypotheke): these terms are used synonymously and only the contexts allow us to reconstruct the actual legal situation.

¹¹ Two of the three documents were originally published by Sayce (1890), pp. 131-44, entered in the Sammelbuch under nos 5174 and 5175. A century later, Brian C. McGing identified the third piece of the dossier, and published and comprehensively commented on all three of them (McGing 1990). The texts were later incorporated in an abbreviated form in P. Dubl. by the same author. A new interpretation of the texts has been most recently offered by Ewa Wipszycka (2009).

¹² See Wipszycka (2009), pp. 240-1 for a tentative localisation of Labla, in the vicinity of the pyramid of Hawara.

In the first document, P. Dubl. 32, dated 7 September 512 CE, a certain monk, Eulogios son of losephos, who at the time lives in another monastic community, that of Mikrou Psyon, sells his monasterion - not just a room, but rather a small house, usually consisting of two or more chambers, storage place, kitchen and sometimes even a workshop^[459] - to another monk, Pousis son of A [...], who already lives in Labla. The price, paid on the spot in coins, was set to eight solidi and 1,200 myriads of denarii, which for the beginning of the sixth century constitutes quite a remarkable amount.

In the second document, P. Dubl. 33, less than a year later than its counterpart (9 July 513 CE), the same monk Eulogios again sells his cell to Paphnoutios, son of Isaac, and Ioulios, son of Aranthios, both living in Labla. This time the price is set to ten solidi. I will not address here the very interesting problem of the private assets owned by monks, a fact obviously contrary to the canon and imperial legislation.^[460] The reader may be referred to authoritative recent studies on the subject.^[461] Suffice to say that, notwith­standing the commandment of poverty, the monks kept command of their mundane affairs, owned property, disposed of it, and borrowed and lent money, a fact well attested by papyrological sources.^[462] Another interesting point, which cannot be discussed at length here, is the fact that Eulogios declares himself to be an ex-Melitian monk, now orthodox, whereas his purchasers are Melitian priests in the first case and monks of the same denomination, in the second. Yet again we may observe that the picture of highly troubled relations between various factions of Christianity, which we usually extrapolate from the literary sources, risks being rather exaggerated when compared with real life.

In both of the deeds, the customary clauses securing the rights of the pur­chasers are inserted, so at the very beginning of both the papyri we read that:

Eulogios acknowledges that he has with free, independent and fixed will, sold and conveyed into complete ownership from the present for all succeeding time... the cell in the said monastery Labla which belongs to the vendor Eulogios, and which came down to him, as he has had confirmed and registered... [cf. lines 2-3 in both texts)]

And later, in P. Dubl. 32, we see:

henceforth the purchaser Pousis possesses and owns the same cell he has pur­chased in its entirety, however many rooms it is, and the courtyard in front of the rooms, and with all its rights from the ground to the very top, as stated above; and have the authority to inhabit, manage, dispose of it, improve it, repair it, tear it down, rebuild it, redesign it, in whatever appearance and condition he wishes; hand it over to his heirs and successors, present it to the others or give it as a gift, in the manner he wishes and without hindrance. (lines 9-11)^[463]

In P. Dubl. 33:

henceforth the purchasers Papnouthios and loulios possess and own in equal half­shares the same cell they have purchased in its entirety, however many rooms it is, and they have authority to inhabit, manage, dispose of it, improve it, repair it, tear it down, rebuild it, redesign it, in whatever condition appearance and condition they wish hand it on to their heir and successors, present it to others, give it away as gift, in the manner they wish and without hindrance. (lines 10-13)^[464]

In the final part of both documents, the vendor stipulates that he or his suc­cessors will take a stand against any possible claims of third parties versus the new owner and, should they fail to do so, they will be liable to pay as penalty double the price and costs incurred. The contracts were additionally secured by hypotheca generalis on Eulogios’ present and future property, a typical feature of all late Byzantine documents (the commonness of the clause actu­ally raises doubts as to its effectiveness). Finally, there is Eulogios’ subscrip­tion (executed on his behalf as he declares himself to be illiterate) and the signatures of the witnesses (five and four, respectively), evidence that both documents are executed lege artis and thus fully effective.

And yet there is a surprising feature: in both papyri the very same person sells exactly the same monasterion within the very same year. To prove it, we only need to compare the description of the dwelling found in both texts. In P. Dubl. 32 we have:

the neighbours of the cell are: to the south, the desert and the cell of the late Andreas the priest; to the north, the cell of the priest Naaraos, to the east, the desert, to the west, the public road in front of the cell of Petros the deacon (lines 6-7),^[466]

and in P. Dubl. 33, the description runs as follows:

the neighbours of the cell are, as they (the parties) have cordially indicated, to the south, a deserted cell; to the north, the cell of the priest Naaraos, to the east, the desert and the entry and exit of the same cell; to the west, the public road in front of the cell of Peter the deacon. (lines 6—7)^[467]

The only difference in these two reports is the fact the cell previously belong­ing to the late priest Andreas is now designated as deserted.^[468] How was it possible that Eulogios sold the same estate twice to two different buyers within a year?

Before we attempt a plausible answer to this question, we still need to consider the third document from the dossier, P. Dubl. 34. It is a settlement of claims, dialysis, executed in poor Greek, rather difficult to understand, most probably on 24 August 511 CE,^[469] so it predates both of the sales. Two monks living in the same hermitage at Labla settle their rights and claims to it. The owner of the monasterion (which unfortunately is not described further), Aioulios, son of Arantheios, writes to his brother, another Melitian monk, Eulogios, son of Pousi.

It is quite likely that we deal in all the documents with the same people. Aioulios, son of Aranthieos, from P. Dubl. 34 could be quite securely identi­fied with the loulios, son of Arantheios, who buys the monasterion in P. Dubl. 33. Aranthios is a very rare name, Aioulios is just a variant of loulios.^[471] It is a bit more difficult to ascertain that Eulogios, son of Ioseph, the vendor in P. Dubl. 32 and 33, is the very same person as Eulogios, son of Pousi of P. Dubl. 34. The fact that the documents were found together, as well as the posi­tion of Eulogios, son of Ioseph, as the vendor and the rightful owner of the cell in the two latter documents may indicate that we have the same person in front of us, notwithstanding the difference in the father’s name and the popularity of the name Eulogios. The scribe of P. Dubl. 34 might have made a mistake, or, more likely, Eulogios’ father may have had a double name.^[472]

Assuming that the above is true, the situation would be as follows: in 511 Aioulios practically cedes to Eulogios his rights to a monasterion in Labla. In 512 Eulogios sells the monasterion to Pousis, and one year later sells it again to Aioulios and Paphnoutios. Brian McGing, following the reasoning of Orsolina Montevecchi,^[473] sees P. Dubl. 32 as a fictitious sale, aimed at secur­ing a loan of eight solidi and 1,200 myriads of silver denarii. Ewa Wipszycka adopts this argument, assuming that the second sale was a real one. She reconstructs the story of Eulogios as follows: in 511 he gets a settlement with loulios, then acquires the ownership of the cell (the deed would be missing), afterwards he leaves Labla (perhaps after having converted to orthodoxy) for Mikrou Psyos, sells his cell to Pousi, presumably only as a guarantee for a loan of eight solidi and 1,200 myriads of silver denari; finally, in 513 he sells (back?) the cell to loulios and Paphnoutios, this time for real.

I suggest that the situation could have been more complex. As we well know from later land sales, the owner usually handed over to the buyer all the deeds that proved his right to the property sold. It is very surprising therefore not to find the missing link in the chain of the owners, that is the deed of sale between Aioulios/Ioulios and Eulogios. Who was, therefore, the original owner of the monasterion in Labla? I think the mysterious clauses in the settlement found in P. Dubl. 34 might give a clue to that matter.

Let me recapitulate: Aioulios occupies the cell but practically deprives himself of his rights as the owner, being only guaranteed his title to live in his own place; Eulogios’ consent is a sine qua non for the introduction of any new inhabitants into the hermitage. Yet there is nothing in the document that may imply that Eulogios would actually share the dwelling with Aioulios; less than a year later, he certainly lives elsewhere. I think therefore that the first loan is granted by Eulogios to Aioulios. Being brethren of the same denomination, they do not feel the need to secure it any further except by creating a specific right of the creditor to the property of the debtor, under a type of cession or gift mortis causa. Eulogios stipulates that the debtor will remain in his home. Eulogios then ‘sub-mortgages’ the cell by means of a fictitious sale to Pousi, getting eight solidi and 1200 myriad denarii as a loan. This liberty should not surprise us in light of the late Antique documents of real securities: the pledgee/hypothecary obtained virtually the full rights over the thing pledged. Subsequently, Eulogios pays off the debt and is given back the deed, and a year later disposes of the cell again. The lack of a re-sale agreement between Pousi and Eulogios should not surprise us: the very fact of handing back the deed has the same effect, the debt becoming equally un-actionable in court. When in 513, Aioulios, the former owner of the cell, gets it back by paying ten solidi to Eulogios, what he actually does may be nothing less than repayment of the original loan taken in 511. This time the deed is made, as (A)ioulios regains all his rights to the cell and will share them with Papnoutios son of Isak.

If this - potentially dangerous - reconstruction is correct, I think I might provide an answer to Wipszycka and McGing’s question: who lived in the monasterion in all that time? It was the original - ‘true’ if you like - owner, Aioulios son of Aranthios. And it was indeed he, who having rolled the three papyri, bound them with red string, wrapped them with linen and wool, and packed them into a jar to be discovered 1,400 years later by Flinders Petrie.

This tiny archive of only three papyri seems to provide information of no less than three loans secured with collaterals that are anything but the standard pledge or mortgage: the possible first loan granted by Eulogios in 511, the second loan that Eulogios took in 512, and most probably another transaction of the same kind between Aioulios and Isak (declared void by the former in P. Dubl. 34).

3.