Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007

American Studies in Papyrology (Ann Arbor 2010) 397–408

Antimisthosis in the Dioscorus Archive*

Florence Lemaire

One of our major sources of information about 6th century Egypt, the Dioscorus archive, has yet to
be fully exploited. Some of the older editions, those dating from the beginning of the 20th century, need
revision and about eighty descripta remain virtually unpublished. A thorough re-edition is often a prereq-
uisite to any attempt at conducting an extensive study of the documentation.1 For the last two years, I
have been engaged in this double work, emendation and commentary, on the rent contracts and rent re-
ceipts for agricultural land in and around the antique village of Aphrodite, a corpus of one hundred texts
of which the leases form the majority (sixty-nine papyri).2 These are mainly designated as misthosis or
misthotike homologia but the term antimisthosis also appears and, in the case of this particularly under-
represented documentary type, corrections of existing texts and editions of descripta have yielded signifi-
cant results, both on particular and general issues.

I. An extended and revised corpus

Very few documents have been identified as antimisthoseis, not only because the type is extremely
rare but also because scholars so far only considered the papyri in which the word itself appears. In one of
the latest studies to address the question – although as part of a larger reflection – J.G. Keenan devoted a
few pages to the three then known representatives of the kind, P.Cair.Masp. I 67107, P.Michael. 43 and
PSI IV 283.3 In 1996, a fragmentary text was published by A. Syrcou4 (= SB XXIV 15959). I shall first
mention several corrections made in these papyri, before presenting the new evidence I have gathered.
The date of P.Cair.Masp. I 67107 has long been the subject of a debate. The name of the consul is in
a lacuna and two restorations are possible:  
[



] or  
[


* For financial support enabling me to attend the Ann Arbor Congress, acknowledgement is made to the Institut de papy-
rologie de la Sorbonne (EA 2558) and the Institut de recherche et d'histoire des textes (UPR 841). I would also like to record
my gratitude to the various institutions and people who helped me in the course of my research: the CNRS unit "Étude des
civilisations de l'Antiquité" (UMR 7044) and Prof. J.-L. Fournet for providing me with the digital images of the Dioscorus
papyri; the Institut français d'archéologie orientale, for the grant of two bursaries in order to consult the original documents
kept in the Cairo Museum, and Mr. S. Hassan, curator of the department of papyrology at the Cairo Museum, who gave me
access to them; Prof. R. Pintaudi, curator of the papyri collection in the Biblioteca Laurenziana, who also provided an access to
the papyri in this collection. I am very grateful to Prof. J.-L. Fournet for his comments both on style and substance and to Prof.
A. Bülow-Jacobsen for correcting the English of these pages. Any defects that remain are naturally my responsibility.
1 Cf. on Dioscorus' poems, J.-L. Fournet, Hellénisme dans l'Égypte du vie siècle: la bibliothèque et l'œuvre de Dioscore

d'Aphrodité (Cairo 1999); and more recently on the tax register of 525/526, C. Zuckerman, Du village à l'Empire. Autour du
registre fiscal d'Aphroditô (525/526) (Paris 2004).
2 This paper focuses on ten documents from the corpus of my Ph.D., prepared at the École Pratique des Hautes Études

and at the Université Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV. The subject, "Les baux ruraux à Aphrodité au VIe siècle de notre ère: les con-
trats de location et les reçus de loyer des archives de Dioscore," has been suggested by my supervisor, Prof. J.-L. Fournet.
3 J.G. Keenan, "Absentee Landlordism at Aphrodito," BASP 22 (1985) 137–169; on the antimisthosis, 143–147.

4 A. Syrcou, "Six Byzantine Documents," APF 42 (1996) 79–111, document n. 5 at 103–109.

398 Florence Lemaire

'].5 As the end of the contract is missing, so are the subscriptions, and in particular that of the
notary, but I have identified the hand of Ouiktôr 1, whose period of activity extends from 506 to 535.6 A
dating by the consulate of Justin (540) is therefore too late in the century; the text must be assigned to the
year 525.
P.Michael. 43 presents the peculiarity of featuring both a lease, in the form of an antimisthosis, and
an acknowledgement of debt. The current location of the papyrus is unknown and the edition only pro-
vides a partial reproduction. However, all the information relevant to my demonstration – formula of the
antimisthosis and identity of both landlord and tenant – is preserved or has been correctly restored by the
editor.
SB XXIV 15959 also combines an antimisthosis and an acknowledgement of debt but the papyrus is
more fragmentary than P.Michael. 43. It only contains the last two lines of the lease, the acknowledge-
ment of debt and the subscriptions; about one third of the breadth is missing on the left side. This lacuna
has been underestimated by the editor and the miscalculation imposes corrections at the beginning of
every line. I mention here the revisions in the kyria-clause and the subscription: % "μ() 
 -

 , | [ - $ ( -) +μ]
 . 333 (m2) *()  ( ( μ )
$ |[μ- ] - 
1 + (  ) (ll. 10–12).7 The landlord is to be identified with the
protokometes Bottos son of Promaôs.8
PSI IV 283 has been known specifically as an antimisthosis since J.G. Keenan's emendation of
#[ to "μ[!!!] (l. 24). The kyria-clause must be restored %
"μ[] | [  -

 ,  - $ ]( ) +μ[
 μ  (ll. 24–25). Another correction concerns the identity of
the landlord, not a pagarch Alexandros for whom there is no other attestation in the Dioscorus Archive,
but the well-known pagarch Ioulianos: 
() '

.
$

[( ) &] 
[ ]
 -
[ ] | 
0
 #[ ]
(2) (ll. 5–6).9 The restoration of the function led me in turn to the
reading of l. 10, where the contract mentions the duration of the lease, "for as long as [we shall be in
charge] of the pagarchy of the same city." 10
In addition to those four documents, I have identified another long-known contract as an antimistho-
sis, despite the absence of the word in what remains of the papyrus. P.Cair.Masp. I 67103 consists of two
independent fragments which preserve, on the one hand, the beginning of the lease (date and address)

5 The first solution, proposed by H.I. Bell (BL V, 21), is accepted by C. Zuckerman, op.cit. (above, n. 1) 29, n. 17; the
second is favored by J. Maspero, R.S. Bagnall (BL IX, 43) and P. Sarris, Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian
(Cambridge 2006) 101.
6 J. Diethart and K.A. Worp, Notarsunterschriften im byzantinischen Ägypten (Byz.Not.) (Vienna 1986) 29–30. A com-

parison of the handwritings in the documents attributed to Ouiktôr reveals that there are in fact two notaries bearing that
name, Ouiktôr 1 for the vast majority of texts and Ouiktôr 2 who wrote P.Cair.Masp. III 67301.
7 A. Syrcou proposed the restorations

 [ -] | [$ ( -) +μ] (ll. 10–11) and $ [μ( )] |

[ ± 5 ] - {} 1 (ll. 11–12).

8 The handwriting of the subscription in SB XXIV 15959 is similar to that of the subscriptions by the protokometes

Bottos in P.Cair.Masp. I 67114, P.Flor. III 280, 288, 290 and P.Lond. V 1667, 1668, 1669.
9 The pagarch Ioulianos is attested with the predicate $  and the title illustris in SB XVI 12510.4–5, dated

551, a few months after PSI IV 283 (22 December 550).

10 [$]
/ ) 

[ ± 7 ] | 
,
 
 

  0
[*0]
  (ll. 9–10).
 Antimisthosis in the Dioscorus Archive 399

and, on the other, the subscriptions. The kyria-clause is in a lacuna; therefore the exact terminology is lost,
but the address and the subscription by the landlord, who signs using the verb (μ$9, are typical of the
antimisthosis (cf. infra).
Two others leases, written for the most part in the usual form of the misthosis, present limited traits of
the antimisthosis.11 In P.Cair.Masp. I 67105 the subscription is written by the landlord: (m2) # +
μ" " (3) *μ9 | ! / )1 ((9) (3) (μ7 |  μμ! %-
[(7)] (μ:;!|{} - "(). μ # (ll. 27–30).12 In P.Lond. V 1690 the endorsement
reads [%]μ(!) 7 & μ μ[].13
P.Lond. V 1841 descr., partially transcribed by H.I. Bell, was rightly described by J.G. Keenan as "a
lease in the rarely surviving antimisthosis format."14 Consultation of the original enabled me to make sev-
eral corrections, in particular in the opening formula (μ[]!   (l. 8), and to read the endorse-
ment: %μ(!) ["][] " [] [] μ
, followed by an illegible toponym.15
Finally, the reedition of two papyri, only described by J. Maspero, further completes the corpus. The
first consists of the join I have made of three pieces edited under different numbers with only the partial
transcription of the notary's signature in the third fragment. P.Cair.Masp. II 67236 descr., in one piece,
represents the top right half of the total fragment; P.Cair.Masp. II 67241 descr., a puzzle of five frag-
ments several of which were not in their right position under the glass, represents the top left half; P.Cair.
Masp. II 67262 descr. preserves the bottom right half. This last piece (frag. B) is not contiguous to the
main part (frag. A).

P.Cair.Masp. II 67236 descr. + Plates I–II A) l. 12.7
h. 12.8 cm

67241 descr. + 67262 descr. B) l. 7.5
h. 9.3 cm
AD 514–527 Aphrodité

––––––––––––––––––––––

[ ± 13 ( ']
μ[ 0  8 / μ5 /]
/ []8 . . ,, (3 2 
4 7 !4 / μ 4
/ 0 ["] 
 μ[]
(3 % 8  7 % [ ]

11 In the Byzantine period, leases are written from the standpoint of the lessee, who acknowledges to have leased the land
from the landlord (μμ!μ . 7 or +μ9 μμ9 . 7) and signs the document (+ 6 μμ!-
μ - "). Cf. S. Waszynski, Die Bodenpacht (Leipzig 1905) 36; J. Herrmann, Studien zur Bodenpacht im Recht des
graeco-aegyptischen Papyri (Munich 1958) 43–54; H. Müller, Untersuchungen zur μ
 von Gebäuden im Recht der
gräko-ägyptischen Papyri (Cologne 1985) 32–39.
12 J. Maspero edited [( )]  μμ! (l. 29) and μ[ ( )]| [     ] (ll. 29–30).

13 H.I. Bell proposed ] at the beginning of the endorsement.

14 Keenan, op.cit. (above, n. 3) 143, n. 30.

15 H.I. Bell read μμ[]!   and mentioned the existence of an endorsement being "only partially legible" (P.Lond.

V, p. 268).
400 Florence Lemaire

+
μ
 , 5 < '[

]
8  * = = μ;,
6 *μ4 3 μ  5 )[.]
- 'μ #()    5  [,]
5 *#5 2[μ]$[]
.?
12 [(m. 2) 0]
  
[# / ( μ)]
[*μ #]{} [2 $().]
[(m. 3) A0 $ ] [



μ <]
[8 'μ&]
 '%
[ 3 :]
16 [μ .]
(m. 1) [? *
! 7] *
[μ: .]  μ(:) 
(: ).

> (from top to bottom)

v° [(m. 1) 'μ #  ]

   #[]  ( ) [ - - ]

The second papyrus, P.Cair.Masp. II 67242 descr., is complete but in a very bad condition.16
J. Maspero described it as "presque entièrement rongé par le sebakh," indicated the date and gave the
transcription of a couple of lines only. These contracts being very formulaic, I have been able to restore
most of the text, from which I quote the beginning of the address, 
6  

: (  μ


 
)
[ ]
[% ']"
μ

 
3 : 

!

[
]

| )

[] .
#
[] '"
μ



(ll.
5–6); the opening formula μ
μ
# 1
[μ]9 (l. 7); the kyria-clause - '
[μ #]




[] 5
  (l. 22) and the endorsement ? 'μ 

(#) : (  μ

[]
(  ) )



[%][ ].17

II. Diplomatic features

The term 'μ # appears exclusively in papyri from the Dioscorus archive written at Aphro-
dite and, due to the scarcity of texts, this particular type of document has only been marginally studied by
scholars. Nevertheless, a consensus has gradually emerged around a limited definition: i.e. a lease written,
contrary to the usual Byzantine practice, from the standpoint of the lessor and which differs from the
common misthosis in that respect only.18 A parallel is often drawn with SB III 6612 (dated 365), a sale
16 I am particularly indebted to Mr. M. Mohammed from the Cairo Museum for assembling of P.Cair.Masp. II 67236

descr. + 67241 descr. and the important restoration work he realized on P.Cair.Masp. II 67242 descr. I would like to thank
Mr. S. Hassan for giving me permission to take pictures of the newly assembled and restored papyri.
17 The address is corrected from [T#] [#]   μ
[]




[] [#"  "]μ


[] , 




[]!
[ ] | [ I]#[]


["]μ

[ ].

18 This definition was elaborated as a reaction against all the hypotheses which tended to see in the antimisthosis some-

thing else than a simple lease in an adapted formula. Cf. H. Comfort, "Notes on requests and "$! among late byzan-
tine land leases," Aegyptus 14 (1934) 289–292 (on "$! "emanating from the lessor," p. 290); R. Taubenschlag, The
Law of Greco-Roman Egypt (Warsaw 19552) 387, n. 1 (antimisthoseis "are not sub-leases but leases"); D.S. Crawford,
P.Michael, p. 93 (against the translation "sub-letting"); G. Malz, "The Papyri of Dioscorus: Publications and Emendations," in
Studi in Onore di A. Calderini e R. Paribeni II (Milan 1957) 356; J. Herrmann, "Bemerkungen zur den μ #-Urkunden
des Papyri Michaelidae," CdÉ 32 (1957) 125; eund., Studien zur Bodenpacht im Recht des graeco-aegyptischen Papyri
(Munich 1958) 14 (against F. Preisigke, who suggested the translation "Ackerpachtung, Pachtvertrag, Afterpacht," in WB I,
 Antimisthosis in the Dioscorus Archive 401

referred to as an  and emanating from the purchaser, at a time when drafting by the seller in
praseis was as much de rigueur as drafting by the tenant in misthoseis.
In keeping with this interpretation and in spite of J.G. Keenan's suggestion of a two-stage process to
explain the existence of this special form of lease – first a regular misthosis was established, then a copy
was made for the lessee and the text adapted so that it would appear to have been written by the lessor19 –
I consider that the antimisthosis was as genuine as the misthosis and the text directly written in its specific
form. Documents show that there is an exact equivalence between the two words, and therefore between
the two types of contract.20 The antimisthosis stands on its own and to all intents and purposes is as legally
valid and binding as the more common misthosis.
By doubling the number of documents under consideration – eight papyri, to which I add the two
marginal uses of elements typical of the antimisthosis in P.Cair.Masp. I 67105 and P.Lond. V 1690 – it
becomes possible to detail the specificities of its diploma, already outlined in a general way by J.G.
Keenan.21 I establish three distinctive features.
The first, of course, is the use of the word μ
 itself, in the kyria-clause, the signature of
witnesses or the endorsement, with the further difference that it is the name of the lessor which is then
recalled on the verso and not that of the lessee as is the rule in misthoseis .
The second is the use of the verb μ
 (in the active) by the landlord in the opening formula of
the contract and in the subscription, instead of the simple μ
 (in the middle) by the lessee in mistho-
seis . 22 Also, antimisthoseis seem to have been written exclusively as cheirographa, whereas in the Diosco-
rus archive homologiai are more common among misthoseis.23
Finally, the point of view of the expression is reverted: the first person refers to the landlord, from
whom the contract emanates, and the second person to the lessee. The presence of any of those three ele-
ments in a lease from Aphrodite indicates that we are dealing with an antimisthosis, or at least, that the
passage has been worded according to the diplomatic rules of the antimisthosis.

137). A. Syrcou's interpretation of the antimisthosis as a "contract where the lease comes as a result of the loan to secure it"
(op.cit. [above, n. 4] 104) is too limited and does not account for the six other documents which, unlike SB XXIV 15959 and
P.Michael. 43, do not feature an acknowledgement of debt after the lease.
19 Keenan, op.cit. (above, n. 3) 143.

20 In P.Michael 43, two witnesses refer to the contract as an antimisthosis (ll. 23 and 24), but one as a simple misthosis

(l. 22). P.Cair.Masp. I 67105 and P.Lond. V 1690 present a mixture of both types. In P.Ross.Georg. III 33, a contract of sub-
lease for the same   as in P.Cair.Masp. I 67107, the original lease between Bêsariôn and the priest Iôannês, son of
Makarios, is simply refered to as a misthosis (ll. 20–22: []
" ! μ | [# μ
 ]
% %    |
[ ()]). Finally, we do find elsewhere in Egypt at the same period a few rent contracts emanating from the lessor
and these are designated as misthoseis: BGU I 349 (313), SB XVI 13004 (314), P.Gen. I 10 (316), P.Rain.Cent. 101 (427),
CPR X 119 (491), SB XXII 15729 (639).
21 Keenan, op.cit. (above, n. 3) 143: "They [antimisthoseis] were formulaically adapted. (…) The antimisthosis has the

lessor in the first person and usually uses the verb form  μ
 or some variation thereof."
22 The use of the compound verb is not systematic. Cf. P.Cair.Masp. II 67242.7: μ
μ

 
[μ]$.

23 For the antimisthosis: five cheirographa, and three documents where the formula is lost; for the misthosis: forty-one

homologiai (μ & - - - μ μ

&
  %), eight cheirographa (μ μ
μ  %) and eleven documents
with the beginning of the contract in the lacuna.
402 Florence Lemaire

antimisthosis misthosis
address 
! (landowner) $
! (tenant) $
! (L) 
! (T)
$
! (L)  "
! (T)
opening formula 
μ  μ
μμ  "
μ# μ
μ#  "
discourse 1st person = landowner 1st person = tenant
2nd person = tenant 2nd person = landowner
kyria-clause  μ   
  μ   

subscription the landowner 
μ the tenant μ
μμ
endorsement μ + name of the landowner μ + name of the tenant

III. Social considerations

The following table records some elements of information provided by the ten documents discussed
in this paper, in particular the identities of landlord and tenant, with the indication of their social status
and origo.

D ate Notary Landowner Tenant

P.Cair.Masp. II 514–527 Isak 24 Aur. Biktôr, s. Makarios
25 Aur. Bêsariôn, s.
67236 + 67241 + gds. Kôstantios Dioskoros
67262 (Aphrodite)
P.Cair.Masp. I 29.5–30.11.525 Ouiktôr 1 Iôannês, s. Makarios, Aur. Bêsariôn, s.
67107 priest (Aphrodite) Dioskoros, s.
Psimanôbet
(Aphrodite)
P.Michael. 43 8.6.526 Abraam The daughters of Fl. Aur. Phoibammôn,
Samouêl, s. Kollouthos, s. Triadelphos,
soldier of the numerus misthotes
of the Ptolemaïd nome (Aphrodite)
(Tanyaithis,
Apollonopolite Minor )
P.Cair.Masp. I 16.9.526 Enôch, singularis The demosios logos Aur. Bêsariôn, s.
67103 (through officials of Dioskoros
Antaiopolis) (Aphrodite)
P.Lond. V 1690 29.8.527 Abraam The koinon of the Aur. Apollôs, s.
monks of the monastery Dioskoros,
of Zmin (Panopolite) protokometes
(Aphrodite)

24 For a list of the documents drafted and signed by the notary Isak, and an estimation of his period of activity,
cf. Diethart and Worp, op.cit. (above, n. 6) 27–28.
25 I adopted the Latin transliteration which is closest to the original Greek (
    vs.  ).
 Antimisthosis in the Dioscorus Archive 403

P.Cair.Masp. I 28.9–27.10.532 — The demosios logos Aur. Paulos, s.

67105 (through officials of Mousaios,
Antaiopolis) joint-tax-payer
(Aphrodite)
P.Lond. V 1841 10.9.536 Abraam Aurelia Theonoê, d. Aur. Phoibammôn,
descr. Ponnis, s. Piriôn s. Triadelphos,
(Aphrodite) (Aphrodite)
SB XXIV 520–545 Abraam 26 Aur. Bottos —
15959 (Aphrodite)
P.Cair.Masp. II 5.9.547 Hermauôs The monastery of Apa N.N., s. Stephanos
67242 descr. Senouthes and another tenant
(Panopolite) (Thmonechthê)27
PSI IV 283 22.12.550 — Fl. Ioulianos, illustris Aur. Phoibammôn,
and pagarch s. Triadelphos,
(Antaiopolis) joint-tax-payer
(Aphrodite)

In the introduction to his study on absentee landlordism, J.G. Keenan indicates that "land tenure at
Aphrodito (…) suggests a rich and varied tapestry (…). It is even possible to perceive a taxonomy of
Aphroditan landholders, ranging from indigenous magnates, secular absentee landlords, monastic and
ecclesiastical landlords (whether based in Aphrodito or elsewhere) to native small-holders."28 Later on, he
focuses on two categories of landowners, secular absentee and monasteries and churches, and considers
only two kinds of documents, antimisthoseis and rent receipts. These restrictions might suggest a link be-
tween the landlord's status and the typology of the lease: misthosis for local individuals, antimisthosis for
institutions and absentee landlords.
Yet, in the newly extended corpus all the different kinds of lessors are attested: secular absentee land-
lords (P.Michael. 43 and PSI IV 283); public institution (P.Cair.Masp. I 67103 and 67105); monasteries
(P.Cair.Masp. II 67142 descr. and P.Lond. V 1690); Aphroditan landholders (P.Cair.Masp. I 67107, II
67236 descr. + 67241 descr. + 67262 descr., P.Lond. V 1841 descr. and SB XXIV 15959).

26 J.-L. Fournet, in his introduction to P.Köln X 421 (pp. 186–187), has added to the list of documents attributed to
Abraam and has limited his period of activity to the years 524–545. A few other contracts are to be attributed to this notary,
among which are P.Lond. V 1699 (11 August 520), P.Lond. V 1693 (summer or autumn 523) and P.Lond. V 1688 (24
December 523).
27 The identity of the tenants, who originate from Thmonechthê, a neighbouring village of Aphrodite, is recorded in one

of the most damaged sections of the papyrus. The patronym of one of them reappears later in the document. The plot of land
(ktêma) used to be leased out to the father: 




μ   
 μ
 
[μ]




   



 []





 (l. 12).
28 Keenan, op.cit. (above, n. 3) 141. The classification here considers the entire documentation which provides informa-

tion on land tenure at Aphrodite: rent receipts, leasing agreements with an absentee landlord as well as between Aphroditans,
sales, etc.
404 Florence Lemaire

On the other hand, when one considers the category of tenants in antimisthoseis, the list appears to be
limited to members of the village elite: Bêsariôn and Apollôs both made a public career as protokometes;
Paulos son of Mousaios presents himself as a joint tax-payer ( 

).29 Phoibammôn son of Tria-
delphos is known as a protokometes (SB XX 15018, 2) and a joint-tax-payer (PSI IV 283, 7). In P.Cair.
Masp. II 67242 descr., the two tenants from Thmonechthê pay one of the highest rent in the documenta-
tion (sixty-three artabas of wheat, three nomismata for the barley and the date-trees, eight carats for a
pigeon house and other contributions in nature). They must be men of means, local residents who offered
guaranties of payment.
The distribution of leases between misthosis and antimisthosis may depend on the social status of the
lessee. For the sake of comparison, I have first considered the category of tenant in the misthoseis ad-
dressed to a secular absentee landowner, a public institution, or a monastery, each of whom is rather un-
derrepresented in this type of lease.30 The following table shows a clear division between antimisthoseis,
reserved for the local elite, and misthoseis, emanating from tenants belonging to a lower order of the vil-
lage society.31

Landowner antimisthosis misthosis Tenant in misthoseis

secular P.Michael. 43 P.Cair.Masp. III 67113 shepherd
absentee PSI IV 283 P.Flor. III 281 shepherd
landlord P.Lond. V 1689 shepherd
P.Cair.Masp. I 67104 32 –
μ
P.Cair.Masp. I 67103 P.Cair.Masp. I 67106 shepherds

P.Cair.Masp. I 67105
churches or P.Cair.Masp. I 67242 descr. P.Cair.Masp. I 67101 shepherd
monasteries
P.Lond. V 1690 P.Köln. II 104 + P.Vat. illiterate
Aphrod. 2
P.Hamb. I 68 illiterate
P.Lond. V 1698 v illage elite

29 When not in charge of the public affairs of the village, Apollôs also presents himself as a joint-tax-payer (P.Flor. III
283.4–5 and P.Ross.Georg. III 36.4–5). For a biography of Apollôs, cf. J.G. Keenan, "Aurelius Apollos and the Aphrodite
Village Elite," in Atti del XVII Congresso internazionale di papirologia (Naples 1984) 957–963; for a summary of Bêsariôn's
and Apollôs's careers as protokometai, cf. C. Zuckermann, Du village à l'Empire (Paris 2004) 47–48; on Phoibammôn, cf. J.G.
Keenan, "Aurelius Phoibammon, son of Triadelphus: A Byzantine Egyptian Land Entrepreneur," BASP 17 (1980) 145–154.
30 I have left out of this discussion two leases described as homologiai and presenting some untypical formulas which set

them apart from the common misthosis (P.Cair.Masp. I 67108 and P.Mich. XIII 667), as well as the seven fragmentary
documents in which the identity of the lessor is not preserved (P.Cair.Masp. II 67239 descr.; P.Lond. V 1697; 1879 descr.;
P.Michael. 60; P.Palau.Rib. 23; SB XXIV 15959; P.Vat.Aphrod. 3 A+C).
31 P.Cair.Masp. I 67105 and P.Lond. V 1690 are written for the most part in the misthosis format but feature traits of the

antimisthosis. In both cases, the tenant belongs to the village elite: the social factor accounts for the diplomatic irregularities.
32 In P.Cair.Masp. I 67104, the notary did not mention the lessor's origo but there is a high degree of probability that we

are dealing with yet another secular absentee landlord, the megaloprepestate daughther of the megaloprepestatos and endoxo-
tatos Count Iôannês, represented by the peribleptos procurator and Count Mênas.
 Antimisthosis in the Dioscorus Archive 405

In the rest of the documentation, which consists in forty-one misthoseis with an Aphroditan land-
owner, we find:
-14 leases emanating from shepherds, all of whom are illiterate,
-10 leases emanating from illiterate tenants whose occupation is unknown,
-14 leases emanating from georgoi or misthotai: 6 bradeôs graphontes, 6 illiterate and 2 whose level
of literacy is unknown.
-3 leases emanating from members of the village elite.
The social distinction should therefore be made between those who actually cultivate the land (ten-
ants in misthoseis) and those who act as middlemen, renting land from absentee landowners and sublet-
ting it to local georgoi or shepherds (tenants in antimisthoseis).
It remains to explain, or at least try to explain, the existence of the three rent contracts – to which one
should add P.Lond. V 1698 – where the lessee is known as a leading member of the local community. If
one may be assigned to the 530's (SB XXVI 16666), two date from the second half of the 6th century
(P.Ross.Georg. III 44 – 553 and P.Lond. V 1698 – 563–572) and one from the beginning of the 7th
(P.Mich. XIII 666).33 This suggests that the antimisthosis may have disappeared after 550.34
To conclude, antimisthoseis are not only limited in number, although I have added to it, they are also
limited in space, being attested only in the Dioscorus archive. They are limited to a certain category of
tenants, those belonging to the elite of Aphrodite, while common village folks seem to have been barred
from it. They even appear to have been limited in time, later leases with the same kind of tenants reverting
to the more common misthosis format.

33 P.Ross.Georg. III 44.2 mentions a "coming third indiction." The tenant Mênas son of Phoibammôn is attested in Octo-
ber 552 (Phaôphi of a first indiction) in P.Flor. III 286.6. P.Lond. V 1698 has been drafted by the notary Kyros 3 attested
from 563 to 572. On the dating of P.Mich. XIII 666, cf. R.S. Bagnall and K.A. Worp, "Dating the Coptic Legal Documents
from Aphrodite," ZPE 148 (2004) 247–252, who propose the year 647/648, and L.S.B. MacCoull, CdÉ 82 (2007) 381–388,
who prefers 632.
34 The chronological argument should be handled with caution: out of the sixty-eight leases discussed here, about two-

third date back to the first half of the 6th Century, and only one-third to the second half. Leases may still have been drafted in
the antimisthosis format after 550, and not been preserved in the Dioscorus Archive.
406 Florence Lemaire

P.Cair.Masp. II 67236 + 67241 + 67262 Recto

Plate I
 Antimisthosis in the Dioscorus Archive 407

P.Cair.Masp. II 67236 + 67241 Verso (Detail)

Plate II