2 results
Chapter 5 - Capital
-
- By Claudia Kreuzsaler, Austrian National Library, François Lerouxel, Université Paris IV, †Tomasz Markiewicz, University of Warsaw, Hans-Albert Rupprecht, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Katelijn Vandorpe, KU Leuven
- Edited by James G. Keenan, Loyola University, Chicago, J. G. Manning, Yale University, Connecticut, Uri Yiftach-Firanko, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
-
- Book:
- Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the Arab Conquest
- Published online:
- 05 May 2014
- Print publication:
- 24 April 2014, pp 226-275
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The loan is among the most common types of Egyptian contracts recorded in Greek (Palme 2009: 368). It is also well represented in the Demotic legal tradition. The present chapter explores the types of loans represented in Demotic, and the variety of Greek loans from the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, as well as one (5.5.3) from the Byzantine. We begin with three examples of Demotic loans of the Ptolemaic period and a text dealing with the litigation concerning a loan (5.1). These are followed by: selected Greek loans of the Ptolemaic (5.2) and Roman (5.3) periods; examples of the use of real security in the Greek papyri (5.4); and Greek loans that were components of other transactions (5.5).
In classical Athens, the credit market was populated by professional bankers and private lenders who provided large maritime loans as well as smaller amounts of credit. Recent research has pointed to the segmented image of the private credit market in Athens: the rich preferred to lend to the rich, citizens to citizens, foreigners to foreigners, whereas bank credit circulated more between social groups. In Ptolemaic Egypt, however, the credit market was dominated by private lenders, who tended to lend out to relatives, fellow villagers, or colleagues. Because of the nature of the documentation, mainly small-scale loans are attested.
Chapter 2 - The historical development of the form, content, and administration of legal documents
-
- By Mark Depauw, KU Leuven, Thomas Kruse, Austrian Academy of Sciences, J. G. Manning, Yale University, Connecticut , †Tomasz Markiewicz, University of Warsaw, T. Sebastian Richter, Universität Leipzig, Katelijn Vandorpe, KU Leuven, Uri Yiftach-Firanko, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
- Edited by James G. Keenan, Loyola University, Chicago, J. G. Manning, Yale University, Connecticut, Uri Yiftach-Firanko, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
-
- Book:
- Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the Arab Conquest
- Published online:
- 05 May 2014
- Print publication:
- 24 April 2014, pp 31-95
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the form, content, and method of state administration of legal instruments from the Ptolemaic to the Byzantine period and beyond. While the basic types of transactions remained fairly consistent (sales, loans, marriage arrangements, and leases), the documents show a wide variety of forms and considerable development, and, in some cases, mutual influence. From the modern perspective there was considerable overlap between types of contracts and their uses. The misthôsis contract, for example, the standard contract of lease, was also used in labor contracts (e.g., 8.2.10) and could be combined with loans. Demotic sales could be used to secure loans and to guarantee the maintenance of a woman in marriage (2.2).
In both Demotic and Greek texts, sale (Chapter 6), the signature contract in many legal systems, was one of the most common types of contracts. In Greek, in sale and other contractual types, the so-called objective homology, i.e., a declaration in the third person: “NN (i.e., the seller) acknowledges that he has sold to NN (i.e., the buyer) . . .,” was at first the prevalent form; but gradually the subjective homology, written in the first person, prevailed: “X to Y, greetings. I acknowledge that I have sold to you . . .”. Demotic contracts also prefer the latter: “I acknowledge that I have received from you the satisfactory price for my house . . .”. Despite the seeming informality of the subjective form, the contracting parties were always carefully identified at all periods according to the style of their times (as discussed in Chapter 1 and elsewhere and as evidenced in many of the selected documents), while the documents themselves tend to be full of back-referring words like “above-written,” “aforementioned,” and variants so familiar from modern contractual boilerplate.