TAPIA'S BANQUET HALL AND OTHER ‘FICTITIOUS' SALES IN THE ARCHIVE OF KAKO AND PATERMOUTHIS

My second set of cases comes from the famous Archive of Patermouthis and Kako.^[474] They concern affairs of the main figures of the set of the papyri, Patermouthis and his quarrelsome mother-in-law Aurelia Tapia.

A deed of sale executed in Syene on 30 May 585 CE (P. Munch. I 9 + P. Lond. V 1734 - protocol = Pap. Eleph. Eng. D40) informs us that Aurelia Tapia has sold five pieces of her property in Syene for ten gold solidi. The purchasers are her daughter Kako and her son-in-law Patermouthis:

I, the aforesaid Tapia acknowledge by this my written security of purchase, willingly and convinced apart from any guile or fear or force or compulsion or deceit or flattery or contrivance or malice or maliciousness or any defect or any mean intention or any circumvention of the law, but of free will and self-chosen volition and sound understanding and pure purpose and fixed cal­culation and unchangeable design and clear conscience and at the same time swearing the dreadful and awesome oath by Almighty God and by the victory and permanence of our most pious masters, Flavi Tiberius Mauricius and Aelia Constantina, the eternal Augusti and Emperors and the greatest benefactors, that I have sold to you today, the aforesaid Patermouthis and Kako, his spouse, by the law of purchase and for eternal possession and total authority and every most complete right of ownership, and that I have transferred to you from now for all on-going time to come belonging to me [the list of pieces of property follows]. (lines 12-30)^[476]

We know that Tapia had left Syene within the previous two years, in order to settle down in Antinoopolis, where her brother also resided,^[477] possibly wishing for some fresh air after long hereditary disputes with her son loannes and daughter Aurelia Tsone, a nun, fathered by Tapia’s (possibly divorced) first husband Menas.

the price mutually agreed upon and approved being gold, ten solidi in the weight of Syenians, namely g(old) 10 so(lidi) in the w(eight) of the Syenians, which full price I have here received in full from you, the purchasers - part of it I have spent for my essential needs or upkeep in the city of the Antinoeans and part I have given towards the remaining incurred by me by reason of my brother Ioannes in the same city - on the present day, from your hand to my hand, from your cashbox, in number and weight complete. (lines 62-70)^[478]

It seems therefore reasonable to believe that P. Münch. I 9 is not a regular deed of sale, but rather constitutes a datio in solutum: a sale of the buildings in lieu of the debt-repayment. This supposition seems to be corroborated by the wording of the ‘price-clause’. Tapia declares she has received the money for her άνακαία χρεία - necessary needs, an expression typical for loans.^[479]

The complications do not end here: as the first ones of the sold proper­ties, there appear two shares in a house in Syene located in the southern part of the fortress: a part of the terrace and half of a banquet hall, or dining­room (symposion). Aurelia Tapia inherited a half-share of these spaces from her mother and the other half-share she bought from her brother Georgios:

the half-share of the symposion belonging to me in the house of my mother, the other half of which belongs to Menas and Tselet, my siblings, facing north towards the stair, on the second floor and also my share of the terrace on the fourth floor above the bedroom of Talephantis with my share of all the appur­tenances.

This very same half of the symposion and a quarter share of the terrace is again sold by Aurelia Tapia some nine years later, on 6 March 594 CE (P. Lond. V 1733 = Pap. Eleph. Eng. D49), to Flavius Apadios, son of Sourous, a soldier of the regiment of Syene:

the half share belonging to me and falling to me of the symposion on the second floor and the quarter share of the roof-terrace above the bedroom is above the symposion which belongs jointly to me and my siblings Menas and Tselet, and my share of appurtenances, (consisting) of the vestibule and gateway and stair and gallery and little oven, with entrance and exit and passage up and passage down, the same house lying in the same Syene in the southern part of the fortress and in the Quarter of Saint Apa Victor, triumphant martyr.^[481] The same half-share of the symposion and the quarter-share of the terrace came to me in this way: one-quarter share of the symposion and the eighth-share (of the terrace) from the inheritance of my mother Mariam, and the other quarter-share and the eighth-share of the above-named places just as has been said above from a rightful purchase through a written document of purchase from Georgios my brother those that came to me and to my siblings Menas and Tselet, in common and undivided. And they came to the aforesaid Mariam herself though legitimate inheritance from her parents, Papnouthios and Thekla in force of their shares.^[482]

The price of the property was set at three solidi. How was it possible that Aurelia Tapia could sell the same piece of property twice within less than a decade? Porten and Farber suggest Tapia’s daughter and her husband have at some point transferred the property back to their mother (-in-law).^{[483] [484] There is no indication, however, that such a thing happened.}

It seems likely - though it cannot be ascertained with complete certainty - that another piece of the five properties ‘sold’ (or transferred in lieu of repayment of the debt) by Tapia to her daughter and son-in-law is sold again by her only a year later. The asset in question is described in lines 49-57 of P. Munch. 9 (= D40) as

the half share of a house that belongs to me, the one having come around to me by rightful purchase from Ioannes son of Paterchnoumios and its other half-share belonged to my late husband as a result of a purchase from the same Ioannes, the same house lying in Syene in the southern part of the fortress and in the Quarter of the Camp. The boundaries of the same house are: on the south the house of the heirs of Apadios; [...] of Abraam [blank line].^[486]

The original acquisition-deed of the house by Tapia and her husband has not been preserved. Yet it is certain that this purchase is mentioned in P. Land. V 1729 (= FIRA III 68, 12 March 584 ce), a curious deed by which Ioannes, son of Patechnoumios, ‘the most humble monk’, declares to have donated to Patermouthis a half share of another house as a token of gratitude for the care and provisions that the latter had undertaken for him. Interestingly, the deed was originally most probably addressed to Tapia, and only later re-addressed to her son-in-law.^[487] And so in lines 9-13, the monk originally acknowledges himself to

have sold (erased: to you and) to your late (erasure: husband) lakobos by a written deed of sale the parts of houses remaining to me and to have got their price from you in accordance with the power of the deed of sale done by me and to have spent (the price) for my essential needs)... ^[488]

I daresay it would not be too hazardous to assume that this sale of the monk’s house was also originally intended to be a security one (we have again a mention -similar to Tapia’s declaration in P.

A deed executed nineteen months later informs us that Tapia transfers to Flavius Kyriakos, son of Menas, soldier, caballarius of the regiment of Syene, the dominium over the half-share of a house which ‘has come around to me through rightful purchase from loannes also called Paptsios and to him from the paternal inheritance’.^[489] The woman mentions that the other half belongs^[490] to her late husband Iakobos. The seller, from whom the couple had acquired the house, may very well be identified with the monk loannes, son of Patechnoumios.^[491] It seems unlikely that Tapia and her husband could have bought an entire house from two different Ioannes. There is a problem, however, with the certain identification of the properties in P. Münch. I 9 and 11: their exact descriptions, prima facie, do not correspond. The property in P. Münch. 11 is

lying in Syene in the southern part of the fortress and in the Quarter of the Public Camel Yard of the transfer from Philae and of the house of Abraamios son of Pachymios (lines 21-4)^[492]

and its boundaries are

on the south the blind and narrow road and the house of Abraamios son of Pachymios; on the north the public road, on the east the house of Abraamios son of Pachymios; on the west the house of Allamon son of Paterchnoumios. (lines 31-3)^[493]

Yet, I think the issue of the inexactitude in the topographical account may be overcome. The general location of the house, the southern part of the fortress, links to the one in P. Münch. I 9. The Quarter of the Public Camel Yard and Quarter of the Camp are definitely not the same, and the bounda­ries do not match, but let us notice that in the former document the scribe was by no means certain about them: he actually deleted the description he had made and left a blank space to fill the exact position later.^[494] It seems as if the parties were not sure where the property really lay.^[495] Finally, it looks unlikely that the monk Ioannes sold two of his estates to the couple Tapia- lakobos, just days before the latter’s death.

The price in P. Münch. I 11 was set to five solidi. The fact that the amount is as much as 50% of the joint price of five estates sold by Tapia to Patermouthis and Kako in P. Münch. I 9 contributes once again to the assumption that the sale of 584 CE was indeed a fictitious one.

The half of the house originally belonging to Ioannes alias Paptsios is the object of sale again in P. Münch. I 12 (= Pap. Eleph. Eng. D46, 13 August 590 CE). Now it is Kyriakos who sells it back to Patermouthis and Kako (spelled in this document as ‘Koko’), for the same price. The seller declares to have bought the property from Tapia and that the other part belongs to the late father of Kako.^[496] It may be a true sale, this time, but it is also possible that the son-in-law and daughter of Tapia simply paid back her original debt of 5 solidi and regained the ownership of the half-share of the house given originally by Tapia as security.

If my reconstruction is true, then we would have the same property used three times as a security for credit (loannes Tapia and lakobos, Tapia Patermouthis and Kako, Tapia Fl. Kyriakos)

Another example from the very same archive shows even better the mechanism of the mock-sales, and I think provides very convincing proof of how they actually functioned.

Some time between 578 and 582, two sisters, Aureliai Tsone and Tsere, daughters of Apadios and Rachel, sold⁵⁰ for ten solidi to Patermouthis and Kako, their relatives, their share consisting of three rooms in a house located between

on the south: the house of Dios son of Kelol, on the north: the public street into which the main door opens; on the west: the house of Dios son of Takares on the east of the house of Pateroous. (Syene, P. Lond. V 1724 = Pap. Eleph. Eng. D32, ll. 35-7)⁵¹

The same property along with a share in a boat seems to be the subject of a controversy arising from division of the remaining parts of the estate of the late lakobos, the father of Kako and loannes, and Tapia’s husband.⁵² The dispute found its solution in an arbitration, P. Münch. I 7 + P. Lond. V 1860 (23 June 583 CE, Antinoopolis = Pap. Eleph. Eng. D36). loannes, Kako’s brother, contested the ownership of the house, which ‘came around to him (Patermouthis) by right of purchase from Isakos and Tsone’.⁵³ loannes apparently had found a deed transferring its ownership to his late father. If Patermouthis and Kako had indeed sold the house to Iakobos, the property should have been part of the inheritance, and thus part of it should have been divided between the siblings after their father’s death. Yet the parties finally decide, thanks to the help of some mediators (cf. l. 34), that loannes has no rights to the house formerly belonging to Tsone and Tsere, and shall therefore return the deed of sale to Patermouthis and Kako and recognise the validity of P. Lond. V 1724. What seems to have happened is as follows:

κακεινου (l. καί εις έκεΐνον) άπο γονικής δι[αδοχ]ής ‘having come to me through rightful purchase from Tapia daughter of Tsios a(nd) to her from loannes alias Paptsios, and from him (read: to him) through inherited succession’.

⁵⁰ On this sale and the history of the property, as well as its identification with the house-object of sale in the earliest document in the Patermouthis Archive, P. Lond. V 1722, see Porten and Farber (1985), pp. 87-90.

⁵¹ νότου η οικία Δίου Κελώλ, βορρά η δημοσία I³⁶ λαύρα εις ην ήνέφκται η αυθεντική κύρα, λιβος η οικία Δίου I³⁷ Τακαρής, άπηλιώτου η οικία Πατεροούτος

⁵² The rest was divided earlier between all of the parties, the widow and her two children in P. Münch. I 6 + P. Lond. V 1849 = Pap. Eleph. Eng. D53, 7 June [?] 583 CE).

⁵³ περιελθόντος εις αυτον I³¹ άπο άγοραστικού δικαίου παρά Ίσακίου καί Τσώνη.

Patermouthis and Kako who, as their archive clearly shows, were in constant need of ready money, fictitiously sold the recently acquired house of Tsore and Tsere to secure the loan that their father/father-in-law, a very wealthy man, had granted them. Later, the loan was repaid, but the deed never returned.^[497] However, there must have been something not recorded in our documentation, that convinced the mediators that the sale was a fictitious one, and allowed them to award the contented house to the married couple and not to their brother(-in-law), loannes.

4.