TH

E

JO

UR

NA

LO

F

JU

RI

ST

IC

PA

PY

RO

LO

GY

Supp

lem

ent

XIX

CULPAFACETS OF LIABILITYIN ANCIENT LEGAL THEORYAND PRACTICEPROCEEDINGS OF THE SEMINAR HELD IN WARSAW 17–19 FEBRUARY 2011

EDITED BYJAKUB URBANIK

WARSAW 2012

SUPPL_XVIII_CULPA_str 12/29/13 10:05 PM Page 4

Culpa. Facets of Liability in Ancient Legal Theory and Practice Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Warsaw 17–19 February 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cosimo Cascione & Carla Masi DoriaPrefazione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Alessandro Adamo Di alcune ipotesi di colpa nella legislazione criminale del Codice Teodosiano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

José Luis Alonso Fault, strict liability and risk in the law of the papyri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Zuzanna BenincasaPro portionibus exercitionis conveniuntur. Sul problema della responsabilità di plures exercitores qui per se navem exerceant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Stanisław KordasiewiczLa colpa e la responsabilità del tutore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Alessandro ManniNoxae datio del cadavere e responsabilità . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Giovanna Daniela Merola Accertamento della responsabilità e mantenimento dell’ordine: il ruolo del centurione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Natale Rampazzo Note sulla responsabilità del giudice e dell’arbitro nel processo romano . . . 181

TABLE OF CONTENTSVI

Paulina ŚwiĘcickaLa colpa aquiliana e il ragionamento dei giuristi romani.Alcune riflessioni sulla struttura dell’argomentazione e delle regole di preferenza nel discorso dogmatico giurisprudenziale in tema di danneggiamento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Anna Tarwacka ‘Censorial stigma’ and the problem of guilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Fabiana Tuccillo Alcune riflessioni sulla responsabilità del magistrato e dell’adsessor.Dolus, diligentia, culpa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Jakub Urbanik Dilligent carpenters in Dioscoros’ papyri and the Justinianic (?) standard of diligence. On P. Cairo Masp. ii 67158 and 67159 . . . . . . . . . 273

Culpa. Facets of Liability in Ancient Legal Theory and Practice

Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Warsaw 17–19 February 2011, pp. 273–296

Jakub Urbanik

DILIGENT CARPENTERS IN DIOSKOROS’ PAPYRI AND THE JUSTINIANIC (?) STANDARD OF DILIGENCE*

ON P. CAIRO MASP. II 67158 AND 67159

1. CULPA-BASED LIABILITY IN THE LATE PAPYRI

The most natural first move before even attempting to discuss theproblem of liability based in negligence in the late Byzantine1 papyri

is to check what Rafał Taubenschlag would have to say in the subject inhis standard reference book. And in fact, the scholar, presenting theproblem of culpa-liability, makes an explicit reference to two papyrifound among the papers of Dioskoros,2 the notorious poet and lawyer

* I owe thanks for all the useful comments to Józef Mélèze Modrzejewski and JoséLuis Alonso, who have read the earlier drafts of the paper.

1 I am using the term ‘Byzantine’ as an equivalent of ‘Late antique’, in reference to thepapyri in accordance to the well-established papyrological practice which terms post-Dio-cletian Egypt as ‘Byzantine’.

2 It would be unnecessary to quote all the literature on Dioscoros, suffice it to recall hisclassic biography by Leslie MacCoull, Dioscorus of Aphrodito, Berkeley – Los Angeles –London 1988 for an overview of his life, and for the most recent update on the scholar-ship and the literature a collection of studies edited by Jean-Luc Fournet, Les archives de

Dioscore d’Aphrodité cent ans après leur découverte. Histoire et culture dans l’Égypte byzantine

(Études d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne), Paris 2008.

JAKUB URBANIK

from Aphrodite, the man on whose legal oeuvre I have been conductingmy research in the recent years. There are two contracts of partnershipbetween artisans, P. Cairo Masp. ii 67158 and ii 67159 (= 67160). Tauben-schlag states that these ‘[t]wo Byzantine contracts of artisan-partnershipwere evidently drawn up under the influence of Justinian’s legislation …[T]he parties exceed the provisions of Justinian’s legislation establishingculpa omnis as the standard of ca{s}<r>e’.3 Both documents were executedduring the Antinoopolitan period of our scholastikos, in the course of theyear 568 and bear far-reaching similarities. What I would be mostly inter-ested here is, obviously, the standard of the parties’ liability and its pos-sible origin in the legislative effort of the great codifier. These two spec-imens, however, are worth a more in-depth look not only because theyseem to portrait rather curious realities of the legal life of the sixth cen-tury Antinoopolis. They also constitute examples of extremely rareoccurrences of partnerships in the papyri.4 To neither of them the schol-arship has devoted the attention they definitely deserve, to my knowl-edge neither of them has also been translated to any modern languages.5

274

3 R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, Warsaw1955 (2 ed.), p. 393.

4 For the – list of the documents – see Orsolina Montevecchi, La papirologia, Milano1988 (2 ed.) p. 225.

5 In the earlier literature they have been only briefly described, none of the authors hasdevoted an in-depth analysis. See, hastily, H. Lewald, rev. of P. Cairo Masp. i–ii, ZRG RA

33 (1912), pp. 620–628, at p. 622; a more detailed description: R. Taubenschlag, ‘Societas

negotiationis im Rechte der Papyri’, ZRG RA 52 (1932), pp. 64–77, at pp. 76–77 (the authorseems to have drawn a bit too far-reaching conclusions, arguments bulit upon a compari-son of all, very scarce, documents registering partnerships in the Greek papyri, especiallythese executed under Ptolemies and Byzantine ones, lead to dubious results); see alsoA. Steinwenter, ‘Aus dem Gesellschaftsrecht der Papyri’, [in:] Studi Riccobono i, Palermo1936, pp. 485–504 at 488–489. This article still remains a useful introduction to the prob-lem of partnership in the papyri, providing a general overview of the issue, terminologyand the form of the documents. V. Arangio Ruiz in his Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustini-

ani (hereinafter FIRA) iii. Negotia provided P. Cairo Masp. ii 67158 with a Latin transla-tion and with a brief commentary (nº 158).

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

2. PARTNERSHIPS OF FINE-CARPENTERS FROM ANTINOOPOLIS

Let me start from the earlier one, P. Cairo Masp. ii 67158, probably datedto 28 April 568.6 Unfortunately it lacks a strip 10–15 letters wide on theleft margin, hence its interpretation is based on a reconstruction sug-gested by the editor. Its content merits a special attention for the par-ticular social circumstances in which it was executed. As no translation tomodern languages has been so far made public I shall first attempt at pro-viding the Reader with an English interpretation of the text and thenproceed to clarify its contents.

a) P. Cairo Masp. ii 67158, 28 April/May 568

?† χµγ\[☧ βασιλείας καὶ ὑπατ]είας τοῦ θ[ει]οτάτου ἡµ[ῶν] δεσπότο[υ]

Φλαυΐου ᾿Ϊ[ο]υστίνο(υ) τοῦ αἰωνίο(υ) Αὐγούστου Αὐτοκράτοροςἔτους

[τρίτου, Παχὼν τρ]ί1τῃ ἀρξοµένης δευτέ[ρα]ς ἐπινεµ[ή]σεως κατὰ2θεῖον νεῦµα. ἐν Ἀντινόο(υ) πόλει τῇ λ[α]µπροτάτ[ῃ].

[ταύτην ποιοῦ]ν2ται καὶ τίθενται πρὸς ἀλλήλους τ[ὴ]ν πα[ρ]οῦσαν1ἁ2πλῆν ἔγγραφον κοινὴν ὁµολογίαν κατὰ κοι1[νὴ]ν

4 [γνώµην καὶ ἄν]ευ π2α2ντὸς δ 2όλου καὶ φόβ 1ο(υ) καὶ βίας καὶ ἀνάγ3κης καὶἀπάτης καὶ οἵας δήποτε συναρπαγῆς τε καὶ [π]ερι-

[γραφῆς, ἐφ’ αἷς π]ε1ρ 3ιέχει δι[α]στολα 2ῖ1ς ἁπάσα2ι1[ς] ἐ2πὶ τοῖς ἑ[ξ]ῆςδ 2[η]λου[µ]ένοις συµφώνοις, ἐκ µὲν ἑνὸς µέρους Αὐρήλ[ιο]ς

[Ψόϊς υἱὸς Ἰσακίο(υ)], ἐκ µη2τρὸς Μαρίας, τέκτων λεπτουργός,ὁρµώµενος ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς λ[α]µπρᾶς Ἀντινοέων πόλεως,

[ἐκ δὲ θατέρου µέρο]υς Αὐρήλιος ᾿Ϊωσῆφις ὁ καὶ Πεκῦσις, υϊὸςΠαύλου, µετὰ συνεστώσης καὶ συνευδοκούσης καὶσυνπει[θ]οµέ(νης)

6 The name of the month, Pachon, has been reconstructed in the left-margin lacuna. As R. S. Bagnall & K. A. Worp, Chronological Systems in Byzantine Egypt, Leiden 2004 (2 ed.), p. 101, n. 1 observe, Pauni is also possible, thus giving us a date one month posterior: 28 May 568.

275

JAKUB URBANIK

8 [αὐτῷ τῆς αὐτοῦ γαµετ]ῆς Αὐρηλ 2ίας Τικολλο(ύ)θου, θυγατρὸςὩρο 2υ 2ωγχίο(υ), ἐκ µητρὸς Παυλίνης, γ[α]µετῆς συµβίο(υ)αὐτο(ῦ), τῆς κ(αὶ) συναινο(ύ)σης

[αὐτῷ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ αὐ]το(ῦ) ὁµολογίᾳ ἐγγράφῳ ἀκολο(ύ)θως τῇδ[υ]νά2[µ]ει αὐτῆς ἐκ παντὸς τρόπο(υ). καὶ ὁµολογο(ῦ)σινἀλλήλοις οἱ ἀφ’ ἑκατέρο(υ)

[µέρους τὰ ὑποτετ]αγµένα χ(αί)ρ(ειν). ὁ[µ]ολογοῦµεν ἡµεῖς οἱπρογεγραµµένοι Ψόϊς ᾿Ϊσακίο(υ) λεπτουργὸς καὶ ἀνὴ 2ρ τυγχάνωντῆς θυγατρὸς ᾿Ϊωσ 2[η]φίο(υ)

[καὶ Τικολλο(ύ)θου τῶ]ν συνκοινωνῶν µο(υ) τῇ το 2(ῦ) Θεοῦ προνοίᾳ κα 2ὶ1συµπραγµατευτῶν µο(υ), κα(ὶ ἐγ)ὼ α2ὐτὸς ᾿Ϊωσῆφις ὁ προρηθεί[ς],

12 [µετὰ συνεστώσης τῆ]ς συνο(ύ)σης καὶ συναινούσης µοι γαµετῆς εἰςταύτην τὴν κοινὴν καὶ ἔγγρ 3αφον ἀπαράβατον ὁµολογία 2ν2,

[ἑκουσίως τε καὶ] κοινῇ γνώµῃ καὶ ἀδόλῳ3 πρ 3ο 2αιρέσ[ει],συνεργάζασθαι ἀλλήλοις εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ἡµῶν πραγµατείαν2, καὶ

[πάντων τῶν συµβη]σοµένων [ἡ]µῖν ἐµποι 1ῆ2σ 2αι ὠνίων διάπρασιν κατὰκοινὴν πειθαρχίαν καὶ βουλὴν καὶ συναίνεσιν ποιήσασ?θαι\,

[δίχα πάσης ῥᾳδ]ιουργίας κ[αὶ] µ1έµ[ψ]εως κ[αὶ] κ 2α[τ]ακαταφρονήσεως καὶ οἵας δήποτε ὀκνηρία[ς], ἐνδείξασθαι ?τε\ἀλλήλοις πρόθεσιν µετὰ

16 [προαιρέσεως(?)] συγκάµνοντες, καὶ συµπνεεῖν ὁµοδυµαδὸν ὡς ἐκµιᾶς ψυχῆς καὶ θάρσο(υ)ς ϊσχύος καµατερῶν ἐξ ἴσου

[πάντων τῶν ἐρ]γαστηριακῶν καὶ πραγµατευτῶν ταύτης τῆς πόλεωςἡµῶν Ἀντινόο(υ), κα[ὶ] ϋπακούειν ἀλλήλοις ἐν πᾶσι

[καλοῖς καὶ ὠφ]ελείµοις ἔργοις καὶ λόγοις, χωρὶς ἀντιλογίας οἵαςδήποτε καὶ ἀντιπαθείας καὶ ὕ!!ϋ!!βρεως, καὶ τὸ εἰσοδευόµενον

[ἡµῖν ἀπὸ παν]τὸς κοινω2φ3ελοῦς ἡµῶν ἐκ τῆς ἐργασίας κέρδος ?ἐξ\οἵου δήποτε πράγµατος καὶ ἐργοχείρο(υ) εἶναι ἐξ ϊσοµοιρί?ας\

20 [ἡµῖν κατὰ τὸ ἥ]µ1ισυ 2 µέρος, µετὰ τὴν ἀποπλήρωσιν τῆς µεταξὺ ἡµῶνο(ὔ)σης µέντοι προχρείας, κα2ὶ1 τήν, ὅπερ ὡσαύτως ἀπείη, ἐσοµένην1

[ζηµίαν ἐξ ὁµοίο(υ) τ]ρόπο(υ) ἐξ ἴσης ἡµίσειας µοίραςἀπολογήσασθαι. ο[ὐ]δὲν ἧτ’τον, εἰ ἐθελήσοιµεν ἀποστῆ[ν]αι τῆςκοινῆς µετ’ ἀλλήλων ἐργασίας,

[ἑτοίµως ἔχειν τ]ὰ δάνια το(ῦ) ὄπιθεν χρόνο(υ), [τ]ὰ γενάµενα ἡµῖνκοινῶς πραγµατευοµένοις, ἐπιγνῶναι κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ἥµισυ µέρος

276

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

[ἐξ ἰσοµοιρίας,] ἐφ’ ὅ τε ἐν µιᾷ ἐργασίᾳ καὶ εὐζωΐᾳ κοινῇ µετ’ἀλλήλων δ 2ιήξαµεν τὸν κατ’ ἐκείνο 2(υ) καιρο(ῦ) χρόνον: καὶ οὐδύνατόν τινι

24 [ἡµῶν περὶ τούτ]ο(υ) ἀµφιβάλλειν ποτέ, µάλιστα ?ἐµε\ Ψόϊν τὸν ϋµ[έτ]ε -ρον γαµβρόν, ἐπὶ προσδοκία[ς] ἔχοντα, εἰ τῷ θεῷ δόξειεν εἶναι,

[τόν τε κληρονό]µον καὶ διάδοχ(ον) ϋµῶν λήµψεως καὶ δόσεως ϋπὲρ3ϋµῶν γενέσθαι, µετὰ τὴν ϋµῶν1 ἀποβίωσιν. καὶ σὺν Θεῷ ἐν µιᾷ

[ἐργασίᾳ γενησόµ]εθα καὶ βίωσει µετ’ ἀλλήλων µεθ’ ὁµονοίας ἔργου,ἀπὸ τῆς σήµερον καὶ προγ[εγ]ραµµέ(νης) ἡµέρας, ἥτις ἐστὶντρίτη το(ῦ)

[Παχὼν µηνὸς τῆς] ἀρξοµένης κατ’ Αἰγυπτίους δευτέρας ἐπινεµήσεω2ς,ἐπὶ τὸν ἀεὶ ἑξῆς ἅπαντα πρ3οσελαύνοντα χρόνον, ἀµέµπτως κ(αὶ)

28 [ἀκαταγνώστως. καὶ] εἰς ἀσφάλειαν πά1ν1των1 τ 1ῶ2ν1 προδιωµολογηθέν -των παρ’ ἡ2[µ]ῶν, ἐπωµ1οσάµεθα τὸν φ3ρικωδέστατο[ν] ὅρκον ἐνοὐδενὶ µὴ παραβῆναι, καὶ πρόστιµον

[κατὰ τοῦ παρ]αβαίνειν ἐπιχειρή[σον]τος ἐπικεῖσθαι χρυσο(ῦ)νοµισµατί[ω]ν ἓξ εὐστάθµων καταβλη 2θ 2ῆναι, ὥστε ?τα[ύτ]α\τ[ῷ] ἐµµένοντι καὶ στοιχοῦντι µέρει ἐξ ἐπερωτήσεω?ς\

[δοθῆναι, µετὰ] κ2[(αὶ)] τ1ο(ῦ) αὐτὸν τὸν παρα2βάτην ἄκοντα ἐµµεῖναι τοῖςἐγγεγραµµ(ένοις) [συ]µ1φώνοις: ἐφ’ οἷς ἐρωτηθέν2τ2ες παρ’ ἀλλήλ[ων]καὶ ἀλλήλο(υ)ς ἐπερωτήσαἐπερωτήσαντες ταύθ’ οὕτως ἔχειν δώσειν

[φυλάττειν ὡµολογ]ήσαµεν, ϋποθέµενο[ι] δὲ καὶ ἀλλήλοις εἰς ταῦταπάντα τά τε νῦν ὄ 2ν2[τα] ἡ2µῖν καὶ ἐσ2[ό]µενα πράγµατ 1α, γεν1ικῶςκαὶ ϊδικῶς, ἐ1[ν]εχύρο(υ) λόγῳ καὶ ὑ 1ποθήκ(ης) δικαίῳ καθάπερ ἐκδίκης ☧

9. BL vii 35: ἐν original ed.; corr. from εγγραφο | 13. l. συνεργάζεσθαι | 15. l. ἐν δέ -ξασθαί. | 15. BL i 448: µετα[λαβεῖν τὸ ἥµι(?)]συ κάµνοντες original ed. | 16. l. συµννεει.| 16. corr. from ὁµοθυµατὸν, l. ὁµοθυµαδὸν | l. καµατηρῶν | 18 l. ὠφ]ελίµοις. | 22. BL

iii 35: ἔχοµεν original ed. | L. δάνεια | 24. BL i 448: [τοῦτ]ο original ed. | 28. l. προ-διοµολογηθέντων | 29. subsequent ed.: ἐπιχειρή[σαν]τος original ed.

ll. 1–2: † χµγ During the reign and consulship of our most pious Lord,Flavius Iustinus, the eternal August and Imperator, year third, on the

277

JAKUB URBANIK

third of Pachon (?) of the second indiction (year), commenced accordingto the divine (i.e. imperial)7 will, in the most splendid city of Antinoe.

ll. 3–10: Aurelios Psois, son of Isakios, his mother being Maria, fine-car-penter,8 coming from the same splendid city of Antinoe on one side, andon the other side, Aurelios Iosephis also known as Pekysis, son of Paulosin assistance of jointly consenting and co-agreeing his consort, AureliaTikollouthos, daughter of Horounchios, of mother Pauline, his wedded-consort, who is agreeing with him in regard to his written agreement inaccordance with her will in all places. make and prepare for one anotherout of their common will and without any kind of fraud and fear and forceand constraint and deceit and whatever kind of treachery and robbery andcircumvention, this present common agreement written in a single copyunder the articles (that it) contains and according the below apparentcommon agreement. And they agree what is below appended from eitherof them. Greeting.

ll. 11–20: We, I, the above-written Psois (son) of Isakios fine carpenterand who also happens to be the husband of the daughter of Iosephios andTikollouthos, my partners and associates by God’s will, and I, Iosephis,the above-said, with assistance of my wife joining with me and agreeingwith me to this common and written and unalterable agreement, agreevoluntarily and of joint will and non-fraudulent conviction, that we col-laborate with one another to the joint our business and that the sale of allmerchandise produced that may come to us (from this agreement) shall bemade according to joint management and will and approval without anylaziness or blame or negligence or whatever dilly-dallying, and that we willinvolve as much as possible commitment and conduct, straining ourselvestogether and that we will breath together with one accord, as if we hadone soul and courage (and) might, (providing work-labour) equal to theone of all the craftsmen and workmen of this our city of Antinoe, and tocomply with one another in every proper and beneficial action and word,without any protest whatsoever or opposition or outrage, and that thework-profit collected for us from everything of common utility of all kindsof matters and work of our hands shall be equally divided between us, half-to-half, having deducted in full all the former debts between us, and sim-ilarly any future loss – which may not happen! – will be borne in equal half-shares.

ll. 20–25: And should we wish to abandon this joint labour-partnershipbetween us we shall immediately admit the loans of the preceeding time,

278

7Cf. Bagnall & Worp, Chronological Systems (cit. n. 6), p. 34.

8Cf. Dioc. Ed. vii 3. Cf. S. Laufer, Diokletian’s Preisedikt, Berlin 1971, comm. ad h.l. with lit.

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

which came into existence between us because of the joint undertakings,in the same half-parts, that is equal shares, for the period of time in whichwe have led one labour-community and harmonious joint-life. And it shallnot be allowed to neither of us to bring any type of suit because of thesematters, and especially to me, Psoi, your son-in-law, who has got theexpectation, should it please God, of being taken and of appointment byyou still in life to (be) your heir and successor after the completion of yourlife. And so we shall be, with God’s will, in one labour-partnership and liv-ing of harmonious work, from this, the above-written day, that is the thirdof Pachon of the coming second Egyptian indiction, for ever, all timecoming afterwards, blamelessly and not giving reason to be brought tocourt.

ll. 26–31: And to secure all points conceded on both sides beforehandby us we are swearing the awe-inspiring oath not to transgress in anything,and that a fine of six coins of gold of fine weight should be paid by theparty in breach to the party abiding and keeping the agreement in virtueof a stipulation, and because of it, the same transgressor, (even) an invol-untary one, will abide to the above-written terms, on which both of ushave agreed, being formally asked to do so by each other, and having stip-ulated that they shall have and give and guard all these, and we are mort-gaging to each other all the matters that we have now and shall have, bothgenerally and singularly by virtue of pledge and right of hypothec, exe-cutable without a trial.

The parties, Aurelios Psois, son of Isakios and Aurelios Iosephis alsoknown as Pekysis, son of Paulos together with his wife Aurelia Tikoll-outhos, daughter of Horounchios, fine carpenters, make a joint agree-ment of partnership.9 They will work together in their trade and divide

9 It is not my purpose in this place to analyse in detail the dogmatic foundations of thecontract of societas in Roman law, I will only address some points as to the standard lia-bility of the partners towards the end of this paper. For the most general overview of thislegal figure see R. Zimmerman, The Law of Obligations. The Roman Foundations of the Civil-

ian Tradition, Oxford 1996 (2 ed.), pp. 451–467 and two excellent recent books on the sub-ject. 1. F. S. Meissel, Societas. Struktur und Typenvielfalt des römischen Gesellschaftsvertrages,Frankfurt a/M 2004, passim, esp. pp. 131–204, for the so-called societas negotiationis alicuius

and societas unius rei which would correspond to our cases here (the author very soundlypoints out that the Roman jurists did not aim at theoretical and terminological diversifi-cations, and so the ultimate distinction between various types of societas cannot be rea-sonable based on our, somewhat nominally blurry, sources); for a brief commentary on our

279

JAKUB URBANIK

the proceeds from the sale of the produced objects. The loss is to be sim-ilarly borne in equal shares. Two circumstances catch our attention. Thefirst, and the most outstanding, is the standard of conduct to which theparties undertake to abide to. They stipulate to act with the diligencetypical for all the craftsmen of the city of Antinoopolis: ἐξ ἴσου | [πάντωντῶν ἐρ]γαστηριακῶν καὶ πραγµατευτῶν ταύτης τῆς πόλεως ἡµῶν Ἀντι -νόο(υ) – ‘equal to the one of all the craftsmen and workmen of this ourcity of Antinoe’. This criterion could be understood in the slightlyanachronic terms of the Romanistic scholarship as culpa levis in abstracto:the standarised type of negligence/diligence-based type of conduct whichwould be proper to an abstract representative of the given class of con-tactor. In most cases this pattern is set by the behaviour typical for agood and diligent father of family (bonus et diligens pater familias),10

but sometimes the standard seems to be fixed at an example typical for agiven situation – like ‘a (diligent craftsman’ in D. 19.2.9.5 (Ulpianus 32 ed.),analysed below. I shall return to this point in a moment (infra, pp. 292–294).

The second interesting feature of our document is its supposed aim.It is seemingly a contract of partnership of artisans. Psois, however, is theson-in-law of the other party, Iosephis and Tikollouthos. Obviously thereis nothing awkard or out-of-order in making business within a blood orpolitical family. Let us notice that Psois expresses his expectation tobecome the heir to the estate of his parents-in-law. This estate, more-over, seems to be treated as a joint matrimonial property, and that is pos-sibly why, the wife appears alongside her husband in the terms of theagreement. It could be argued, therefore, that the societas-agreement hereoperates as a particular matrimonial settlement between the parents-in-law and the husband of their daughter (who, interestingly, is not admit-ted to the bond at all). It may be yet another ingenious example of howto manage property after marriage and how to secure proper care over the

280

papyri see pp. 152–153. 2. G. Santucci, Il socio d’opera in diritto romano. Conferimenti e respon -

sabilità, Padova 1997, who, however, does not really engage with the sources of the legalpractice, apart from a Dacian triptych, FIRA iii nº 157 (on which cf. infra, pp. 291–292).

10 See, e.g. Zimmerman, Law (cit. n. 9), pp. 210–211 in respect to depositum.

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

family estate in a different way than a classical standard dowry agree-ment.11

The whole agreement is concluded by a stipulation clause, typical forall types of contracts and secured by a general mortgage.

b) P. Cairo Masp. ii 67159, 16 December 568

Before I discuss further the liability model assumed by the carpenters, letme present the other case, P. Cairo Masp. ii 67159. It has been preservedin two copies,12 none written by Dioskoros himself. This circumstanceopens an interesting question about the reason of their existance in hisarchives. Slightly more correct P. Cair. Masp. ii 67160 may have been asecond, perhaps the final, draft of the agreement. Again we are faced witha partnership of carpenters.

☧ βασιλείας [κ]αὶ [ὑπ]ατεί[ας] τ 2οῦ θειοτάτ[ου ἡµ]ῶν δεσπότουΦλαυΐου

Ἰουσ[τί]νου τοῦ αἰω 2[νίου] Α 2ὐγούστου Αὐτοκράτορος ἔτους τετάρτου,Χοι[ὰ]κ εἰκάς δευ[τέ]ρ 1ας ἰνδ(ικτίονος). ἐν Ἀντι(νόου) πόλει τῇ

λαµπροτάτῃ.4 ☧ ταύτην τίθεντα[ι] καὶ ποιοῦνται πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς τὴν ἀντισύγγραφο?ν\κοινὴν δισσὴν ὁµολογίαν, ἐπὶ τοῖς ἑξῆς δηλουµένοις συµφώνοιςἐφ’ αἷς περιέχει διαστολαῖς ἁπάσαις: ἐκ µὲν τοῦ ἑνὸς µέρους Αὐρήλ(ιος)Δανιῆλις ἐκ πατρὸ 2ς Ἰω 2σηφίου, ἐκ µητρὸς Θέκλας, λεπτουργὸς

11 Another example of such invention to be found among the papers of Dioskoros is aset of documents P. Michael. 42a – a mortgage by which the groom and his parents conveyto the bride 10 arurae of land to secure repayment of the latter’s dowry – and P. Michael.

42b by which the bride leases the same land back to her political family for the rentequalling the annual tax on the estate. See further my ‘Marriage and divorce in the lateantique legal practice and legislation’ [in:] Esperanza Osaba (ed.), Derecho, cultura y sociedad

en la Antigüedad Tardía, Bilbao 2013 (in print).12

Heidelberger Gesammtverzeichnis der Papyri (and after it also the website Papyri Info

<<www.papyri. info>>), wrongly states that P. Cairo Masp. iii 67315 recto is a third copy ofthe same document.

281

JAKUB URBANIK

8 τέκτω 2ν τῇ τέχνῃ, ὡ2ρ 1µώµενος ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς καλλιπόλε(ως)Ἀντινοέων,

ἐκ δὲ θατέρου µέρους Αὐρήλιος Βίκτωρ υἱὸς Φιλήµµωνος, ἐκ µητρὸςΜαρίας, καὶ αὐτὸς τῆς αὐτῆς τέχνης συνκείµενος, ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆςἈντινοέων πόλεως, καταγόµενος ἀλλήλοις τὰ ὑποτεταγµένα,

12 χαίρειν. ὁµολογο 2[ῦ]µεν κοινῇ γνώµῃ καὶ ἀδόλῳ προαιρέσει, συν-εργάζεσθαι ἀλλήλοις εἰς {εἰς} τὴν ἡµῶν τῆς λεπτουργίας τεκτονικὴ?ν\ τέχνην, διὰ τ 2αύτης ἡµῶν τῆς ἐγγράφου ὁµολογίας, ἄνευ παντὸςδόλου καὶ φόβου καὶ βίας καὶ ἀπάτης καὶ ἀνάγκης καὶ πάσης συν-

16 αρπαγῆς τε καὶ περιγραφῆς κατὰ νόµους, ἑτοίµως ἔχειν ἡµεῖςοἱ προγεγραµµένοι ἄνδρες τέκτονες, ἀπὸ τῆς σήµερον καὶπροτεταγµένας ἡµέρας, ἥτις ἐστὶν τοῦ µηνὸς Χοιὰκ εἰκὰςἡµέρα τῆς παρούσης δευτέρας ἐπινεµήσεως, µέχρι περαιώσεως

20 ἑνὸς καὶ µόνου ἐνιαυσιαίου χρόνου, ψηφιζοµέ(νου) τοῦ αὐτοῦ χρόνο(υ)ἀπὸ τῆς προειρηµένης ἡµέρας, ἐφ’ ᾧ ἡµᾶς, δίχα πάσηςῥᾳδιουργίας, ἀµέµπτως καὶ ἀκαταγνώστως, συνοµονοεῖνἀλλήλοις καὶ συνκαµεῖν καὶ συνπνεεῖν εἰς πάντα τὰ ἁρµόττοντα2?α\

24 ἔργα τῇ ἡµῶν τέχνῃ, µετὰ πάσης ὑποταγῆς καὶ ὑπακοῆςπαρ’ ἀλλήλων εἰς ἀλλήλους ἐν ἅπασι καλοῖς καὶ ὀφελείµοις ἔργοις ?τε\ καὶ λόγοις ἀµέµπτως καὶ ἀκαταφρονήτως, δίχα πάσηςῥᾳδιουργίας καὶ γογγισµοῦ καὶ ὑ 2π2ερθέσεως καὶ ἀναβολῆς

28 ἔργων διόλου, εἰς πάντα τὰ ἐπιταττόµε2ν2α ἡµῖν ἢ καὶ προσ-ταχθησόµενα παρ’ οἵου δήποτε ἀνθρώπο[υ] λόγῳ ἐργοχείρουἐπιταγῆ, ὥστε ἡµ2[ᾶ]ς πάντα ποιῆσαι καὶ ἐκτελέσαι µεθ’ ὑγιοῦςτῆς πίστεως, καὶ ἀποκαταστῆσαι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀβλαβῶς, καὶ τοὺς

32 µισθοὺς ἱκανῶς [ἀ]π2ολαµβάνειν καὶ δι2αµερίσασθαι εἰς ἑαυτοὺςτούτους κοινῇ ἐφ’ ἡµίσείας µερισµοῦ, δίχα πάσης κλοπῆς καὶἀποστασίας: µὴ δυναµένου τινὸς ἡµῶν µήτε δυνησοµένο(υ)ἀποστῆναι τῆς ἐµ2πιπ2τούση 2[ς ἡ]µῖν ἐργ 3[α]σ2ίας

36 καθ’ οἷον δήπο[τε χ]ρόνον ἢ καιρὸν ἢ ἡµέραν, καὶ ὑπερ-θέ[σ]θαι καὶ προφά 2σ 2ει2ς2 ἐπανατεῖναι καὶ τοῦ ἔργου καταφρονήσιν κα 2[ὶ εἰ] ἀποσταίνη τις παρὰ ταῦτα τὰ συντεταγµένα σύµφωνα ὑπερ-βῆ[ναι], καὶ µὴ δικ2[αί]ως ἐξακολουθῆσαι τῷ ἐπίοντι ἔργῳ καθ’

40 ἑκά2στην Θεοῦ βου 2λ 2οµένου, δίχα νοσήµ2α2τος, παρέξει τὸ παρα-βαῖ[ν]ον µέρος ὑ2π2ὲ2[ρ ἀµ]ελείας χρυσοῦ [νοµ]ί1σµ(ατα) τέσσαρα. καὶ εἰ ἀπο-

282

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

σταί2η τοῦ ἔργου πρὸ συµπληρώσεως το[ῦ ἐ]νιαυτοῦ, τὸ αὐτὸπρόστιµον

ἐπιγινώσκειν δίχα κρίσεως καὶ δίκης καὶ οἵας δήποτε εὑρεσιλογίας 44 καὶ παραγραφῆς νόµ2ο2[υ], ὑποκειµένων ἀ[λλή]λοις εἰς τοῦτο καὶ εἰς πάντατὰ προγεγραµµένα [π]άντ 2ων ἡµῶν τῶν ἡµῖν ὄντων καὶ ἐσοµένωνπραγµάτων, κινη[τῶν τ]ε καὶ ἀκινήτων καὶ αὐτοκινήτων, ἐνεχύρου λόγῳκαὶ ὑποθήκης δικαί[ῳ, εἰς] ἀποπλήρωσιν πάντων µέχρι τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἑνὸς

48 ἐνιαυτοῦ. καὶ ἐφ’ ἅπαντα τὰ προγεγραµµένα σύµφωνα ἐπερωτηθέντεςπαρ’ ἀλλήλων καὶ ἀλλήλους ἐπερωτήσαντες καὶ εἰς πέρας ἄγειν

ὡµολ(ογήσαµεν) †

3. l. εἰκάδι | or Ἀντινό[ου π]όλει | l.ὁρµώµενος | or Ἀντι(νοέων) | 10. or συγκείµενος:corr. from συνκειµενος | 11. l. καταγόµενοι | 13. or ?τῆς\ | 18. l. προτεταγµένης | 20.corr. from ενιαυτιαιου | 23. l. συνπνεῖν | l. ἁρµόττοντα | 25. l. ὠφελίµοις | 27. l. γογ -γυσµοῦ | 30. l. ἐπιταγῆς | 37. l. καταφρονήσειν or καταφρονήσει?ν\ | 38. l. ἀποσταίη |41. or ἀµελείας λόγο 2[υ] | 43. l. εὑρησιλογίας | 48. or προειρηµένα

ll. 1–12: During the reign consulship of our most divine Lord Flavius Iusti-nus, the eternal Augustus Imperator, the fourth year, on the twentieth ofChoiak, in the second indiction year, in Antinoe, the most splendid. Aurelios Danielis of father Iosephios and of mother Thekla, fine carpen-ter by trade, coming from the beautiful city of the Antinopolites, on oneside, and on the other side Aurelios Victor, son of Philemmon, of motherMaria, of the same trade, belonging to the same city of the Antinoitesmake and prepare for each other this mutually signed common and dou-ble agreement, upon the below revealed and concordant all conditionswhich (it) contains. Greeting.

ll. 12–34: We agree with common will and non-fraudulent conviction towork together for our trade of fine carpentry through this written agree-ment without any kind of fraud and fear and force and constraint anddeceit and all treachery and circumvention against the laws, that we, theabove-written artisans, are ready from today and the fixed date, which isthe twentieth day of the month Choiak of the present second indiction(year), until the fulfilment of just one and single yearly time, the timecounted from the above-mentioned day, on which we, without any lazi-ness, and being blameless and behaving in such a way that they would not

283

JAKUB URBANIK

be brought to the court come to one mind with one another and ( decided)to make joint efforts and breath together for all the corresponding worksof our trade with all subordination and compliance between one anotherin all good and beneficial acts and words being blameless and behaving insuch a way that they would not be brought to the court and without anylaziness and indignation and entirely without delay and putting off theworks towards all commanded to us ordered by whichever man as an orderfor manual labour, and to do and accomplish everything with sound trustand to restore13 without any defect at our expense and to receive corre-sponding wages and to distribute by common consent to ourselves in half-shares, without any theft and (secretly) putting anything away.

ll. 34–37: And it is not allowed, and shall not be allowed, to neither ofus to withdraw from the work befalling on whatever time, period or day,and to defer and to plead any excuses, and to disregard (our) labour.

ll. 38–44: And if anyone should withdraw from these conceded agree-ments and transgress (them), so it will happen that some work will result(from this) to the party abiding the terms of the contract on a daily basis,with an exception, with God so willing, of a disease (as a reason thereof),the transgressing party shall pay because of this negligence, four coins ofgold. And if anyone should withdraw from the agreement before the yearis completed, he shall observe the same penalty without judicial proceed-ings and judgment and whatever tricky argumentation and circumventionof the law.

ll. 44–49: And we are mortgaging to each other (in order to secure) allthis, and what is written above, all matters that belong and shall belong tous: movable and immovable and self-movable by the by virtue of pledgeand right of hypothec, for the fulfillment of all (the agreements) until theend of the same one year. And being mutually asked the formal questionabout the above-written agreements, we have both stipulated and haveagreed to act (accordingly). †

The parties to the agreement, Aurelios Danielis son of Iosephios andAurelios Victor, son of Philemmon, both fine carpenters and originatingfrom Antinoopolis – just like in the preceding case – have establishedtheir partnership for one year. Their undertake to work together, acceptorders from the clients and not to shrink away from the commanded

284

13 With Maspero, comm. ad h.l.: ‘faire des reparations’.

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

labours. It seems that any damage caused by their work should be per-sonally amended by the partner responsible thereof (l. 31). The wages thattheir singularly will collect should be divided in equal shares betweenboth associates. The parties also stipulate a penalty to be paid in case oftheir negligent actions, in fact absence from work but for the case of ill-ness, amounting to four solidi of gold. The partners additionally promiseto each other that they would not secretly keep for themselves anythingfrom the common labour – this clause has no parelel in the precedentdocument where perhaps the ‘family’ context made it obsolete. Yet thismay have been a rather typical arrangement as among the Coptic ostrakafrom Medinet Habu we find two sherds corresponding to one anotherwith oaths by which labour-partners assure each other not to have takenmoney and trading goods from among common things.14

Just like the previous specimen also this one is concluded by a stipu-latory clause and a general hypothec securing proper execution of thecontract.15

14 The editors, Elizabeth Stefanski and Miriam Lichtheim note that the sherdsmatch, and that the hand-writing on both belongs to the same person who must have exe-cuted them for illiterate promisees. O. Medinet Habu 89 (7th/8th cent.): I, Daniel, swear(an) oath to | Mark, thus: By this place, by | its holy power, since | I have worked with you,neither in | the north nor in the south have I | concealed from you the two | carats, | norin | the trading verso: goods. and O. Medinet Habu 90 (7th/8th cent.): I, Mark, swear (an)oath, | thus to Daniel: By this place, | by its might, by its holy power, | since I have worked| with you, neither I, | nor my wife, nor my | daughter, have ... verso: | whether | you werein the north | or whether you were in the south, | I have not deceived | you in the tradinggoods, | nor have my wife or | my daughter.

15 On this type of collateral, and especially its efficiency see my recent study ‘How tomake collaterals effective? A study of the late antique “real” securities’, § 2, with literaturetherein cited (in print). One cannot but recall that the Byzantine legal practice virtuallyequated conventional pledge (hypotheca) and possessory one (pignus – enechyron): ourpapyrus is just yet another example proving this fact: see further ‘Tapia’s banquet hall andEulogios’ cell. Transfer of ownership as security for debt in Late Antiquity’ [in:], P. DuPlessis (ed.), New Frontiers: Law and Society in the Roman World, Edinburgh 2013, pp. 151––174, at pp. 151–152 with notes.

285

JAKUB URBANIK

3. PARTNERSHIPSIN THE ROMAN-BYZANTINE PAPYRI

I have already pointed out that our contracts are quite singular. Partner-ships in general are rarely represented in the papyri. Many of the availablecounterparts, dated to a later period, and thus comparable because of thepresumed influence of the Roman legal practice, are unions betweenfarmers who undertake to jointly cultivate estate leased by one of them,sharing the duty to pay the rent (and so they cannot provide exact paralels).

And such is the case of P. Amh. ii 94 (= WChr. 347, Hermoupolis, 29August 208), where a lessee of the public land undertakes to pay S of therent and taxes and his partner the remaining third share. The surplus isto be divided in the same proportion. The associates will continue theirrelation if the tenant should be obliged to continue the cultivation afterthe expiry of the five-year period of the lease.16 Apart from a very genericundertaking to jointly farm the land, no further duty of neither party andtheir standard liability is specified.17 Another, and slightly earlier, con-tract from the Fayum closely follows the same pattern: in P. Oxf. 12 (Arsi-noite nome, 153–154) a man, whose name has been lost, joins three co-lessees of a fishing right from two reservoirs of the village Karanis,assuming a quarter share in their enterprise.18 The new partner accepts to

286

16Cf. A. Ch. Johnson, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome ii. Roman Egypt to the Reign of

Diocletian, Baltimore 1936, pp. 118–119, for a short commentary and translation. On a mar-ginal note, one could recall that such a practice of the fisc and public officials was deemedunjust (ἀδικία) already in the Edict of Tiberius Julius Alexander, of ad 68 (cf. OGIS 669,ll. 10–15 and G. Chalon, ĽÉdit de Tiberius Julius Alexander. Étude historique et exégétique,Lausanne 1964, pp. 101–108). Furthermore an imperial rescript by Hadrian to a judicialinquiry deemed inhumane (valde inhumanus mos est iste: D. 49.14.3.6, Callistratus, 3 de iure

fisci; cf. further, Claudia Kreuzsaler & J. Urbanik; ‘Humanity and inhumanity of law.The case of Dionysia’, JJurP 38 (2008), pp. 119–156 at 145). Obviously the steps againstabuse of the tenants were not really applied in practice as our papyrus shows.

17 See also, two slightly posterior, and almost more laconic in this respect, P. Lips. i 18(Hermoupolis, 3rd/4th cent.), another ‘Teilpacht’ entered into by Aurelios Ausonios – theowner of the cultivated land and Aurelioi Olympios and Paesis, and P. Oxy. x 1280(Oxyrhynchos, 4th cent.), a partnership in lease of a camel-shed.

18 A similar agreement, of which details are lost, is to be found under P. Amh. ii 100

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

do all the work befalling his share and to pay one-fourth of the rent. He will receive back the quarter of the surplus.19

From the later examples of such, the Dioskorean corpus brings one sim-ilar covenant. P. Lond. v 1705 (Aphrodite, 1st half of the 6th cent.), presentsan agreement between Besarion, uncle of our notary, and Viktor. Theyagree to jointly cultivate a farm belonging to the Holy New Church, leasedearlier by Besarion, the duration is set to two years. It is indeed unfortu-nate that only the opening lines of the deed have been preserved, in fact wemay only find out that Besarion’s share was fixed at R. We do not knowhow – if at all – a standard of care of the parties was agreed upon.

It is quite interesting to compare this document to another act involv-ing Besarion, not an infrequent party20 to land leases in Aphrodite, espe-cially of church estates, P. Lond. v 1694 (Aphrodite, 1st half of the 6thcent.). In this document Dioskoros’ relative sub-leases21 a terrain belong-ing to the same Holy New Church to Aurelioi Mathias son of Ponnis andIbeis son of Apollos. The rent is to be paid in kind, both the lessees andthe lessor are to share the burdens to upkeep of a sakya and irrigation,they also divide duties as to the provision of sowing seeds (Besarion isresponsible for the seeds of the main crop and his tenants for these of

(Ashmunen, 198–211): Hermes having obtained a lease of a lake for three years acceptsKornelios alias Hermophilos as his partner in one-sixth share.

19 Other, still earlier, cases, bear similar features. In P. Mich. v 348 (Tebtynis, 27), againa fourth partner is admitted into a partnership farming catoecic land, leased by one ofpartners. A cheirographon, P. Flor. iii 370 (Hermoupolites, 4 December 132), documentstwo Romans’ entering a partnership in equal shares to cultivate leased public land. Possi-bly similar content is to be expected in the poorly preserved P. Princ. ii 36 (?, 195–197) and stillunpublished P.CtYBR inv. 616 dated to the year 99, of which only the lower part survives: cf.,<<http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/apis/item?mode=item&key=yale.apis.0006160000>>.The fact that in the archive of the grapheion of Tebtynis there is only one entry on a partner-ship may show that the low number of papyri representing partnerships may not be entire-ly accidental. This enterprise was made by Orseus and others between 24 and 29 July 42(P. Mich. ii 121 recto, col. viii, l. 12). 20 See also, e.g., P. Cairo. Masp. i 67107, which Maspero dated to 541, but may have been

executed earlier (cf. Introduction to P. Lond. v 1694, p. 95), by which Besarion leases landfrom the priest Ioannes.

21 I am following the editor’s suggestion to correct τῇ ἁγίᾳ καινῇ | ἐκκλησίᾳ in lines 7/8into genitive (see P. Lond. v, pp. 95–96).

287

JAKUB URBANIK

grass). Finally the produce of the field is to be divided into halves.22

Indeed this lease, functionally, is not far an agricultural partnership.One more lease needs to be recalled here. SB iv 7369 (Hermopolis,

September 512) records an agreement to rent a vineyard by Apollos son ofIsidoros and Apollos son of Isaios from Flavius Taurinos, former soldier,now a priest of the Main Church of Hermopolis.23 The land in questionconsists of two parts: a fully productive one and of a half of parcel withnewly planted vegetation. The rent for the vineyard itself is fixed in kind,the crop to be shared between the lessor, on one side, and the tenants andtheir water supplier, on the other. The whole date-crop, instead, will be -long to Apolloi upon payment of ´R gold solidus (cf. Frisk, introduction).What is extremely interesting for our case is the way in which the tenantsundertake to take care of the land: for the cultivation of vines they will applyall care and attention.24 They will secure the proper product of the vineyardby working the vine according to the way it is usually done in the said plotof land belonging to Taurinos.25 Dieter Nörr saw in these terms a fixing ofan objective standard of care, just like in the case of our carpenters.26

Obviously labour-partnerships would provide a far better comparisonto our cases. There are only three instances27 of such in the papyri. P. Köln

288

22 Ll. 18–19: κ1ατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ εἰς ἡµᾶς µὲν ὑπὲρ τῶν καµάτων | εἴς σε δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐκφορίων κτλ.23 Flavius Taurinos ii is one of the personae of the multi-generational archive of Fl. Tau-

rinos son of Plousammon and his descendants, on which, most recently, see KarolienGeens, ‘Archive of Flavius Taurinos, son of Plousammon’ at <<http://www.trismegistos.org/arch/archives/pdf/259.pdf>> (28.05.2004); original publication by H. Frisk, ‘Vier Papyriaus der Berliner Sammlung’, Aegyptus 9 (1928), pp. 291–295: ‘Pachtvertrag über Rebenland’.

24 L. 11: πρὸς ἀµπελουργικὴν ἡµῶν ἐργασίαν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐπιµέλειαν καὶ φιλοκαλίαν, κτλ.25 Ll. 21–22: ὥ2σ2τ 2ε2 ἡ2µ2ᾶ2ς τὴν πᾶσαν ἀ2µπελ[ουργ]ικὴ[ν] ἐ2[ργα]σίαν ποιήσασθα[ι] ἀ[µ]έµ -π[τ]ως κατὰ µίµησιν τοῦ µεγάλου σου | ἀµπελικοῦ χωρίου, κτλ. Cf. as well the Dioscore-an P. Ham. i 21 (Antinoopolis, 4 September 569), ll. 22–29, yet without this ‘objective’ termof comparison.

26 D. Nörr, Die Fahrlässigkeit im byzantinischen Vertragsrecht, München 1960, p. 191 and n. 3See further J. L. Alonso, ‘Fault, strict liability and risk in the law of the papyri’, in this vol-ume, pp. 19–108 at pp. 28–29.

27 I am not taking into consideration a curious Christian letter sent from from to Arsino -ites, P. Amh. i 3a (= WChr. 126), in which Amelotti and Migliardi Zingale (infra, n. 30),see an allusion to a non-profit partnership baking bread, as the context is too obscure to

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

ii 101 (Oxyrhynchos, 28 September 274 or 280)28 is a beginning of a con-tract of Aurelioi Sarapion and Silvanos forming an enterprise for the peri-od of 18 months of some kind of work, perhaps to produce objects madeof tin.29 The only surviving clause foresees joint purchase of the objectsnecessary for the undertaking.

The second, very particular, instance almost constituting a category ofits own, is given by two papyri from the Great Oasis, P. Genova 20 (25June 319) and 21 (25 July 320).30 Aurelios Timotheos and Aurelios Uonsisform twice a partnership designed to organise transport of men in andout of the Great Oasis. Whereas the former partner should manage thebusiness, the latter associate provides the capital (12 talents in the earliercase, 26 talents and 3000 drachms in the later). Both documents formu-lated as receipts of the manager for the money paid and his declaration tothat he would spend it to hire the porters.31

The last, securely identifiable,32 undertaking to joint-work is P. Lond. v1794 (Hermopolis, 21 June 488). This, unfortunately badly damagedpapyrus – its whole lower part has been lost – documents a partnershipbetween two fruit sellers, Aurelioi Isidoros and Dorotheos. Because of itsstate of preservation we cannot know with certainty what the exact con-

draw any reasonable conclusions. On this letter see M. Naldini, Il cristianesimo in Egitto.Lettere private nei papyri dei secoli ii–iv, Firenze 1968, nº 6, pp. 79–85 with literature.

28 H. Harrauer, Paläographie, Textband, pp. 368–369, nº 178, opts for the year 280.29 ‘βρυτανική τέχνη’: see Bärbel Krämer & D. Hagedorn, P. Köln ii 101, comm. ad. l. 9;

and, more detailed, H. Hagedorn in the original publication: ZPE 13 (1974), pp. 127–129.30 See the original edition and commentary of the editors: M. Amelotti & Livia

Migliardi Zingle, ‘Una società di trasporto nella Grande Oasi’, [in:] Studi di Storia Anti-

ca in memoria di L. De Regibus, Genova 1969, pp. 167–176 [= M. Amelotti, Scritti giuridici,a cura di Livia Migliardi Zingle, Torino 1996, pp. 87–99] and D. C. Gofas, ‘Quelquesobservations sur un papyrus contenant un contrat de société (PUG ii, appendice i)’, [in:]Studi in onore A. Biscardi ii, Milano 1982, pp. 499–520.

31P. Genova 20, l. 6 and 21, l. 8, assuming a very hypothetical reconstruction of the edi-

tors, cf. comm. ad h. ll.32 Another deed of partnership from Hermopolis, P. Lond. v 1795 (datable to the 6th cen-

tury), preserves only the penalty clause, stipulations and the subscriptions of the partiesand witnesses, one cannot therefore reconstruct what may have been the goal of this asso-ciation.

289

JAKUB URBANIK

tract terms were, yet the whole act seems to be much simpler than casesunder examination. The parties undertake to share in equal parts the gainsand losses, nothing is said about the way in which they should execute theirtasks, or what their exact character would be. It seems that the division ofthe profit would be conducted after the loss is covered and taxes paid.33

The final example comes from the Roman Dacia34 – and therefore can-not be used as a close comparison case to the Antinoopolitan carpentersassociations. Yet, it cannot be overlooked as it contains a very particularformulation, perhaps the only direct reference to the standard of liabilityadopted by the partners apart from P. Cairo Masp. ii 67158 and 67159 underdiscussion here. The Transylvanian wax-tablets, CIL iii xiii (pp. 950–951 =

290

33P. Lond. v 1794, ll. 12–16: ἐπ2ὶ1�κοινῷ λήµ|µ2ατι καὶ ἀναλώµ2[α]τ 2ι καὶ ο 2ὕ 2τ 2ω ἡµᾶς πα2ρ 1α2σχεῖν

| [ο]ι1νῶς τα 2[ 2 2 2 22] 2ια ἀν2α2λώµατα τῆς αὐτῆς τεχνῆ2 | κ2[αὶ] µ2ε2τ 2ὰ τὴ[ν ἀπόδο(?)]σ2[ιν(?)] τῶνφόρ[ω]ν καὶ τῶν ἀνα|λω 2µάτων2 κτλ.

34 For a description and an overview of the literature, see most recently Meissel, Socie -

tas (cit. n. 9), pp. 171–174 and especially, Santucci, Il socio d’opera (cit. n. 9), pp. 206–209with a particular analysis of the deceit-based liability assumed by the partners. The latterauthor evokes as well in this instance (cf. n. 41 at the p. 207) a fragment of the second tableof Vipasca, the so-called lex metalli dicta, refering to division of the necessary expenses inthe mine by all the partners. A partner who would fradulently avoid contributing hisrespective part of the costs, shall be deprived of the digging share corresponding to him.Contrariwise, any expenses which would appear to have been made in good faith are tobe recovered from the other partners. The lex, thus, on one hand foresees a modificationon the standard terms on which a mining society would operate in the public mine, and,on the other, additionally safeguards the good-faith nature of the contract of partnership.

See, FIRA I2 nº 104, now amended by S. Lazzarini, ‘Seconda tavola di Vipasca (a. 117–138 d.C.’, [in:] G. Purpura (ed.), Revisione ed integrazione dei Fontes Iuris Romani

Anteiustiniani (Fira). Studi prepa ratori. i. Leges, Torino 2012, nº 2, pp. 43–62): col ii, ll. 18–19: … Qui non ita contulerit, quive quid dolo | malo fecerit quominus conferat, quovequem quosve ex sociis fallat, is eius putei partem ne | habeto, eaque pars socii sociorumvequi inpensas fecerint esto. [Ei v]el ii<s> coloni<s> qui inpensam fecerint in eo puteo, inquo plures socii fuerint, repetendi a sociis quod | bona fide erogatum esse apparuerit iusesto. – ‘If anyone does not thus contribute or does anything with malice aforethought toavoid contributing or to deceive one or more of his partners, he shall not have his shareof such diggings, and that share shall belong to the partner or partners who cover theexpenses. Alternatively, tenants who cover expenses in such diggings in which there aremany partners shall have a legal right to recover from their partners anything that isshown to have been expended in good faith’. (transl. T. G. Parkin & A. J. Pomeroy,Roman Social History. A Sourcebook, London – New York 2007, p. 283).

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

FIRA iii nº 157),35 document a societas (rei) danistariae. They were executedon the 28 of March 167, yet the partnership in question had been createdearlier, on the 23rd of December 166 and was still to last for a fortnightmore (till the 12th of April of the same year). The parties, Cassius Fronti-nus and Iulius Alexander brought in, respectively, 267 and 500 denarii (theformer through agency of a slave Secundos, owed by Cassius Palumbus – aswe may imagine from the name, a co-freedman of Frontinus). The profit

35 Inter Cassium Frontinum et Iulium | Alexandrum societas dani[st]ariae ex | x Kal(endas)Ianuarias q(uae) p(roximae) f(uerunt) Pudente e[t] Polione cos. in | prid[i]e idus Aprilesproximas venturas ita conve|n[i]t, _ut´ ut, quidq[ui]d in ea societati ab re | natum fueritlucrum damnumve acciderit, | aequis portionibus su2[scip]ere debebunt. | In qua societateintuli[t Iuli]us Alexander nume|ratos sive in fructo (denarios) [qu]ingentos, et Secundus |Cassi Palumbi servus a[ctor] intulit (denarios) ducentos | sexaginta septem pr[o Fron]tin[o— —]s [—]chum e2i1s | [—]ssum Alburno [— —] d[ebeb]it. | In qua societ[ate] si quis d[oloma]lo fraudem fec[isse de]|prehensus fue[rit], in a[sse] uno (denarium) unum [— in] |d[en]ar[ium] unum (denarios) xx [— —] alio inferre debe[bi]t, | et tempore perac[t]ode[duc]to aere alieno sive | summam s(upra) s(criptam) s[ibi recipere sive], si quod super-fuerit, | dividere d[ebebunt]. Id d(ari) f(ieri) p(raestari)que stipulatus est | Cassius Frontin[us,spopon]dit Iul(ius) Alexander. | De qua re duo paria [ta]bularum signatae sunt. | [Item]debentur Cossae (denarii) l, quos a socis s(upra)s(criptis) accipere debebit. | [Act(um)Deusa]re v Kal. April(es) Vero iii et Quad rato co(n)s(ulibus). – ‘A partnership of money-lenders was made between Cassius Frontinus and Iulius Alexander from the 23rd of Decem-ber 166 to the coming 12 of April in the following terms: that whatever shall be born in thispartnership or happen to gain or to loss they shall share it in equal parts. Iulius Alexanderhas brought to this partnership five hundred denari, counted or in gain (following ArangioRuiz’s suggestion, p. 482, n. 1), and Secundus, the slave-representative of Cassius Palumbushas brought two hundred sixty-seven for Frontinus [...…] he will owe (?). If anyone is foundto have committed fraud employing evil deceit in this partnership, he will owe to the otherfor one as, one denarius, and for one denarius, 20 denarii. After this time, and havingdeducted loans from the others, they shall divide either the above written sum or what shallbe left. Cassius Frontinus has asked a formal question that it shall be done, undertaken andguaranteed, Iulius Alexander has promised. Of this thing two equal tablets have beensealed. Similarly 50 denari are owed to Cossa, which he shall receive from the partners. The deed was made on the 28th of March 167.’

For a detailed description of the deed, yet without further dogmatical considerations, seeV. Şotropa, Le droit romain en Dacie, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 220–223 and G. Ciulei, Les triptyques de Transylvanie (Études juridiques), Amsterdam 1983, pp. 61–65, ch. v: ‘Notes sur lecontrat concernant une société. c.i.l., iii, p. 951’, as well as E. Pólay, ‘Ein Gesell schafts vertragaus dem romischen Dakien’, Acta Ant. Acad. Scient. Hung., Budapest 1960, pp. 417–436 (non

vidi), and on the function of the stipulation in this instance, idem, ‘Die Rolle der Stipulationin den Urkunden der siebenbürgischen Wachstafeln’, JJurP 15 (1965), pp. 185–220 at p. 218.

291

JAKUB URBANIK

was to be divided in equal shares. The parties enforced their agreement bystipulations, expressively excluding any fraudulent conduct in their actionsand promising to pay ten-fold or twenty-fold penalty, for respectively dam-ages lesser and greater in value than one denarius:

Pag. iii, ll. 3–4. In qua societ[ate] si quis d[olo ma]lo fraudem fec[issede]|prehensus fue[rit], in a[sse] uno (denarium) unum [— in] | d[en]ar[ium]unum (denarios) xx [— —] alio inferre debe[bi]t ...

If anyone is found to have committed fraud employing evil deceit in this partnership, he will owe to the other for one as, one denarius, and for onedenarius 20 denarii. …

What was the exact function of this clause? Obviously the parties didnot have to agree to provide fraud-based liability – exclusion of dolus as aterm of a contract would expressively contravene the principles of boni

mores, and hence would be void. Would we then have to read it as a limita-tion of their liability, excluding cases of any culpa, gross or lesser negligence?

4. THE STANDARD OF DILIGENCE IN LABOUR-PARTNERSHIP AND THE CARE ASSUMED

BY THE ANTINOOPOLITAN CARPENTERS

An answer to this question depends on a solution adopted for much greaterdogmatic problem, which I cannot profoundly address in this paper, name-ly what the standard liability of a socius was.36 Part of the scholarship, espe-cially older, assumes that it was limited to fraud.37 The newer approach seesa gradual extension of the liability, imposed by the evolution of the socialand economic conditions.38 The good-faith principle governing the contract

292

36 See a very comprehensive overview in Santucci, Il socio d’opera (cit. n. 9), pp. 193–230.37 To this directions goes, e.g., F. Schulz, Classical Roman Law, Oxford 1951, pp. 551–552,

who also points at irresolvable problems with the sources, professing at the end the ars

nesciendi in this instance. 38

Cf. Zimmerman, Law (cit. n. 9), pp. 461–465 with sources. This view might be cor-roborated by the fact that Lex Irnitiana reserves actio pro socio to the sole competence of

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

made grossly negligent conduct, especially one that a partner would haveabstained from in his own affairs, equal to fraud.39 There is only a tiny stepfrom this approach to adopting diligentia quam in suis as the model of liability.And then finally the objective standard of care: as – so Zimmerman – Ulpianin D. 17.2.52.2 seems to be going towards. The Justinianic attitude, however,seems to have kept the former solution.40

<

As we have noticed none of the papyri documenting partnerships fore-sees a standard liability imposed on the parties. It is true that the mate-rial we possess – given its scarcity and quite unfortunate state of preser-vation – does not allow solid and irrefutable conclusions. Yet even withall due diligence one may venture a statement that P. Cairo Masp. ii 67158and 67159 are in this respect unique.41 How come then do we find suchcovenants in these two – rather petty – agreements?

For Arthur Steinwenter these formulations simply express the will of theparties: they decide to exceed the standard terms of the contract and instead

the provincial governor when quod dolo malo factum esse dicatur (Lex Irnitiana ixb, ll. 9–11).The municipal magistrates would in turn try cases in which only culpa of a partner wasinvestigated and whereby a condemnation would not incur infamia. See, Francesca Lam-berti, Tabulae Irnitanae. Municipalità e ius Romanorum, Napoli 1993, pp. 155–156 with lit.,ibidem, pp. 348–349 for the text, and Santucci, Il socio d’opera (cit. n. 9), pp. 203–204.

39 Just as was the case in the contract of deposit in Celsian view: D. 16.3.32, with Zim-merman, Law (cit. n. 9), p. 463.40

Cf. Just. Inst. 3.25.9 and D. 17.2.72 (Gai. 2 rer. cott.) with Zimmerman’s commentary,Law (cit. n. 9), pp. 466–467 with nn. 96–99. On these passages cf. also Santucci, Il socio

d’opera (cit. n. 9), pp. 212–230. A profound examination of the Byzantine doctrine is to befound in Nörr, Die Fahrlässigkeit (cit. n. 27), pp. 30–35.

41 W. Kunkel’s old hypothesis interpreting ἐπιµέλεια as the forerunner of the Byzantineculpa, (‘Diligentia’, ZRG RA 45 [1925], pp. 266–351) must be refuted, see, now for all, Alonso,‘Fault’ (cit. n. 26), pp. 26–36. One cannot agree with Kunkel’s view, who interpreted ἀµελέλιαin 67159 and the work-standard of the Antinopolitan craftsmen as hypostases of ἐπιµέλεια. He was followed by F. Wieacker, ‘Haftungsformen des römischen Gesellschaftsrecht’, ZRG

RA 54 (1934), pp. 35–79, at pp. 75 –76.: ‘In P. Masp. 67160 versprechen Handwerker einemAkkordeur ἡµῶν τέχνη’ die Korrelativität zu ἀµέλεια zeigt, daß damit eine Diligenzpflichtübernommen ist.’

293

JAKUB URBANIK

of assuming the duty to be as diligent as in their own matters they choosethe model of omnis culpa.42 Franz Wieacker, in turn, saw in these clauses away in which the notary exemplified the abstract terms of the fault liability.43

There seems to be, however, yet another explanation, even if ratherrisky, dwelling not so much in the general ‘Schuldtheorie’ as in the per-sonal style and educational background of the scribe. Reading the refer-ence to the standard conduct of the Antinoopolitan artisans I could nothelp but to recall well-known fragments of the Roman jurisprudentialtexts which describe the liability of conductor operis.

D. 19.2.9.5 (Ulpianus libro 32 ad edictum): Celsus etiam imperitiam culpaeadnumerandam libro octavo digestorum scripsit: si quis vitulos pascendosvel sarciendum quid poliendumve conduxit, culpam eum praestare debereet quod imperitia peccavit, culpam esse: quippe ut artifex, inquit, conduxit.

Celsus wrote in the Eighth Book of his Digest that also imperitia (want ofskill) counts as negligence (culpa). If someone rents calves to be fed, oraccepts something for repair or polish, he must answer for his negligence, andwant of skill is negligence, because he receives the item as a (skilled) artisan.

D. 19.2.13.5 (Ulpianus libro 32 ad edictum). Si gemma includenda autinsculpenda data sit eaque fracta sit, si quidem vitio materiae fractum sit,non erit ex locato actio, si imperitia facientis, erit. Huic sententiae adden-dum est, nisi periculum quoque in se artifex receperat: tunc enim etsi vitiomateriae id evenit, erit ex locato actio.

If a precious stone has been given for the purpose of being set or engraved,and it broke, if it was due to a defect in the material, there shall be no actionon hiring, but if it was due to lack of skill, there shall be action. This, it mustbe added, unless the artisan assumed the risk: for then, even if it happeneddue to a defect in the material, there shall be an action on hiring.

294

42 Steinwenter, ‘Gesellschaftsrecht’ (cit. n. 4), p. 502: ‘Wir sehen also, dass die Parteienüber die dem Recht der ‘societas’ übliche eingeschränke Sorgfaltsplicht hinausgehen undHaftung für ‘culpa omnis’ vereinbaren.’

43 Wieacker, ‘Haftungsformen’ (cit. n. 37), p. 76: ‘Diese Versuche der Urkundenschrei -ber, ein konkretes Haftungsmaß zu finden, geben den Gedankengängen der vorjustinian-ischen Schuldtheorie ein deutlicheres Relief.’

DILIGENT CARPENTERS

D. 19.2.25.7 (Gaius ad edictum provinciale): Qui columnam transportandamconduxit, si ea, dum tollitur aut portatur aut reponitur, fracta sit, ita id peri -cu lum praestat, si qua ipsius eorumque, quorum opera uteretur, culpa accid -erit: culpa autem abest, si omnia facta sunt, quae diligentis-simus quisqueobservaturus fuisset. Idem scilicet intellegemus et si dolia vel tignum trans-portandum aliquis conduxerit: idemque etiam ad ceteras res transferri potest.

If a column is broken when raised or carried or unloaded by someone whotook charge of it for transportation, he will be responsible for the damage,whether this happened through his fault or through that of any of thosewhose services he employs. There is no fault, however, if all precautionsare taken which a very diligent and careful man would take. The same ofcourse applies, we believe, if someone agrees to transport casks or lumber;and the same also applies to all other things.

It is true that these texts concern a legal figure different from societas.Yet I think they are perfectly applicable in our case: we have seen abovethat in the legal practice leases of land for agricultural purposes come veryclosely to agricultural partnerships. Moreover, the artisans forming alabour-partnership will accept orders from their clients under the regimeof locatio-conductio operis, and while carrying them out they will have toprovide their clients with standard dilligence of a skilled artisan. It is,therefore, quite reasonable to put these texts next to our contracts of part-nership. In their description of the standard of liability Gaius and Ulpianused the abstract notions of ‘want of skill’ – imperitia, ‘skilled artisan’ –artifex, and finally the most diligent man – quae diligentissimus quisque obser-

vaturus fuisset. This is culpa in abstracto, the same one that the Antinoopoli-tan carpenters adopted, exceeding the statutory limits of liability in regularpartnerships in the times of Justinian.44 Further on, one could easily under-stand why they did so. In relations with their clients they would have toprovide the standard dilligence typical for a craftsman. Default of suchwould constitute a breach of contract and consequently a loss, which wouldeventually befall the formed partnership. No wonder then, the partnerswere keen to secure this standard for their relationship, obliging them-selves to keep it in all the external relations resulting from the partnership.

44Cf. Nörr, Die Fahrlässigkeit (cit. n. 27), pp. 190–191.

295

JAKUB URBANIK

This particular formulation of P. Cairo Masp. ii 67158 is to be foundnowhere outside the Dioskorean corpus. It may be very well so, that thephrasing of this papyrus as well as of P. Cairo Masp. ii 67159, also charac-terized by distinctly more legal flavour than any clause-formats in the ear-lier contracts of partnerships, bring forward reminiscences of Dioskoros’legal education. It seems even more likely as the Digest cases I have justcited seem to be perfect school examples, designed to a comprehensiveexposition of the particular standards of liability for the students. Shouldthat be the case – and by no means I am trying to exceed the limits of amere hypothesis – we would have yet another example of our notary’sjuristic skill.45 A question remains, as always in these instances, who werethe unqualified men who taught Dioskoros his trade, which at least in thiscase proved to be perhaps not as spurious as Justinian deemed it to be.46

Jakub Urbanik

Chair of Roman Law and the Law of AntiquityInstitute of History of LawFaculty of Law and AdministrationUniversity of WarsawKrakowskie Przedmieście 26/2800–927 WarsawPoland

e-mail: kuba@adm.uw.edu.pl

296

45 On this subject see, more recently P. van Minnen, ‘Dioscorus and the law’, [in:] A. A.MacDonald, M. W. Twomey & G. J. Reinink (eds.), Learned Antiquity. Scholarship and Society

in the Near-East, the Greco-Roman World, and the Early Medieval West, Leuven – Paris – DudleyMA 2003, pp. 115–133, and the conclusions of my studies: ‘Dioskoros and the law (on succes-sion): lex Falcidia revisited’, [in:] Les archives de Dioscore d’Aphrodité cent ans après leur découverte.

Histoire et culture dans l’Égypte byzantine, éd. par J.-L. Fournet, Paris 2008, pp. 117–142 as wellas ‘P. Cairo Masp. i 67120 recto and the liability for latent defects in the late antique slave sales:or back to epaphe’, JJurP 40 (2010), pp. 219–248; ‘Broken marriage promise and Justinian as alover of chastity. On P. Cairo Masp. i 67092 (553) and Novela 74’, JJurP 41 (2011), pp. 123–151.46

Cf. Const. Omnem 7. … quia audivimus etiam in Alexandrina splendidissima civitate etin Caesariensium et in aliis quosdam imperitos homines devagare et doctrinam discipulisadulterinam tradere … – ‘as we have heard that even in the most splendid city of Alexan-dria and in that of Caesarea and in some others unqualified men deviate and pass spuri-ous knowledge to the students’.