Papyri.info

APIS Translation (English)

(Lines 44–48) (5. H.) † [In the ninth year of] the reign of [our] most divine [and pious] Lord [Flavius Iustinus], Eternal Emperor Augustus [and after the second consulship of] our [same] Lord, on the sixth before the Ides [of August] in the [four hundred and sixty-]ninth year of the province, on the twenty- . . . of the month Loos . . . in the seventh indiction, [in Kastron] Zadakathon . . . (Lines 48–58) Memorandum [of the agreement between, on the one hand] . . . Theodoros, son of Obodianos . . . on [the other hand] the most God-fearing Stephanos, [son of Leontios, deacon of this church], made . . . [through] their written . . . [the most God-fearing] Theodoros, son of Alpheios, deacon of [our] most holy [church, and the most honorable Thomas], son of Boethos, prior of this garrison, to decide (over a dispute) between [them] . . . to settle and to [give] a written decision according to what seems to them to be right, and accepting . . . . . this . . . (Lines 58–69) The most God-pleasing [Theodoros] . . . case against Stephanos over a central courtyard (mesaulon) and a refuse pit (koprodocheion) and . . . and water conduit through the same houses (oikesis) . . . the northern [vault (hapsis) . . . . . accused] the most God-fearing [Stephanos] . . . of the most blessed [Kassisaios, son of Horion, and] Gregoria, his wife . . . The same most God-fearing Stephanos . . . the stable (mandra) . . . the right of Sooudothe, his niece, said that . . . the houses for conducting water or . . . [to his most blessed father] Leontios, son of Thanamounos. (Lines 69–79) Concerning the instituted [lawsuit and] the said controversy over the outbuilding (aulidrion) [the said most God-pleasing Theodoros] presented a written deed of sale [made] in Kastron Zadakathon for his most blessed father Obodianos seventy years ago [by the] most blessed Obedos, son of Ichmallos, stating that he has [the right to the] said stable or [outbuilding] in front of (his) house complex (aule). [Concerning] . . . the northern . . . of the house he [presented] a written memorandum (made) [through] the most God-pleasing [Sergios, priest] and country bishop of Sauron?, of a suit between [himself and Kassisaios the Son?] with the defense made with the consent [of both parties and] with the assent of the said most God-fearing Stephanos. (Lines 79–86) The said most God-fearing Stephanos, too, presented two deeds of sale made to his most blessed father Leontios, the one (made) fifty-three years ago [by] the most blessed Leontios, son of Abdallos, the other forty[-three] years ago by the most blessed Petros, son of Ioannes, weaver of Tarsian fabrics, the [other] deed of sale made fifty-three years ago stating . . . [that Theodoros had] only (the right of) entrance and exit, the other deed of sale made forty-three [years ago] proved not to state that towards the east . . . . . (Lines 89–99) . . . [the most God-pleasing] Theodoros . . . : “. . . my opponent in the [memorandum submitted] by me, that he thinks that he still has the ownership of the stable . . . and the refuse pit as far as the street of the house complex, as when owned by the most blessed Petros, [son of Ioannes]. Concerning the central courtyard of the most God-fearing Stephanos, it is possible for me to bring provisional decision for the right of my house, and the controversy is, from its beginning, as follows. [The entrance] is [through] the same door, and the deed of sale (made) to his father was [misinterpreted] by him in a new [way] causing damage, [so that] he has the [ownership] of the said house (oikos) inside the same central courtyard. What I [said in] my (memorandum) about my deed of sale, that I have the [right] to [the said house, he] . . . saying that he has . . . (Lines 102–16) . . . . .our right. For he . . . me for the fact that my most blessed father resided in Palestine and that I do not care for the local matters . . . he even causes our house (oikemata) to be destroyed or its material taken by some people from the garrison . . . of my opponent, he, as I suspect, acquired the agreement (concluded) with me up to now about its care on the pretext that he would . . . the house, (but) true to his habit, at the same time he tried to disregard many decisions. For when he was sued. . . . and our accusation . . . . . the condemnation ahead of him . . . . . and when he was asked by us to . . . about this through an oath, he had the nerve to . . . the defense . . . and concerning this . . . the heirs of Kassisaios and Gregoria. Therefore I now ask my opponent to satisfy me with an oath by the Holy Treasures that he did not know nor was aware of the destruction. (Lines 116–19) Finally, he committed an act of interference . . . the houses, but he said that no interference . . . by him with his father and that he did not finishhis. . . taking anything from the materials of my house. (Lines 119–33) I have submitted to you the whole written memorandum together with the deed of sale, as well as the [written (contract)] made between myself and Kassisaios [the Son] with the most God-pleasing Sergios, the country bishop, and the past [agreement] including the defense of the [plot] of Kassisaios . . . . . the [documents] of the [defense] . . . . . nothing of the [agreement] concluded between myself and Kassisaios [the Son] through the said most God-pleasing [Sergios] nor of the later defense [of the said plot] . . . . . that it was decided that Kassisaios and his wife Gregoria themselves should guarantee to me with their own risk and that of their property, with their heirs and successors, the said plot belonging to my house and the outbuilding, on the written securities made between myself and the said Kassisaios and his wife Gregoria. When these things have at a certain time been made manifest, I ask that there be safeguarded for me in the same written documents my right to the said plot. (Lines 133–42) Of the water conduit of my house to the said stable situated in front of it, I [ask] through your rightfulness [and justness] to have the northern vault in the said plot of the [outbuilding] situated in front of my house, and the refuse pit . . . the water channel, so that it goes through as is well . . . . . the disputed . . . . . and an oath . . . . . such . . . . . by you . . . . . and from the agreement including the ensuing defense, concluded in written form between me and the said Kassisaios and Gregoria, and when the above-written sale is verified.” (Lines 142–51) When the most God-pleasing Theodoros had thus made his presentation in written form, after learning the accusation, the most God-fearing Stephanos also [himself] submitted to us his plea in written form, written by a notary, as follows: “To the most God-fearing Theodoros, son of Alpheios, archdeacon of our sacred and most holy church, and to the most honorable Thomas, son of Boethos, [prior] of Kastron Zadakathon. As I have submitted to you a request in written form . . . his . . . . . to us finally.. . . . an oath . . . and wishes to build . . . . . distortedly pleading . . . . . (Lines 152–63) At the moment, he has unreasonably and unjustly sued me over the right belonging to his house, claiming that he still today has (this) right, after I have been in possession (of it) about fifty years, and (that) my father gave up? the right inside my house complex according to the interpretation of the sale made to my father, saying [that he owns the stable] in the northern part of the same house complex, and in the sale of our portion there never . . . because of such a matter . . . . . the price . . . . . today . . . until . . . . . to solve. Thereafter, it is possible for us? to retain my rights from the past up to the present. (Lines 163–87) Above all, as I accused together with my father, when he was still alive, and after his death, that when the phylarch Abu Cherebos determined that (he) should take the vineyard, he agreed for the sake of the goodwill and gratification of the last-mentioned to pay two solidi. And at first, [when] he did not strive to cede and could not [pay] the solidi, I said . . . the ruins . . . he did not want to, until the . . . was totally ruined. In the meantime, he gave as a pledge and . . . and bring . . . to sell . . . . . that it is not allowed . . . . . the destruction of the house (oikia) . . . or reduction in price. For if he had [the right which] he claims to have, he should have prohibited me when I built the (houses) neighboring on this house twenty years ago, and not to have allowed (it), saying that (I) have freedom to build. When he . . . to come frequently, he made hither every year . . . fifty times?, fourteen . . . thirty-four . . . [in?] three years?, and to any such . . . . . to learn that . . . . . not to erect? nor . . . . . due to pay the double . . . take care of . . . . . the dung of the mules? . . . . . And if any chance person or any neighbor of ours shall witness [this], that either I or, before me, my father, took [something] from the same house, I will submit to him. (Lines 187–97) If I wished before his . . . to reroute the water conduit of his house to my house complex on the pretext of the son’s memorandum, what I would do is (to construct) a pipe to my paternal (house), and I would not accuse him in this matter over the servitudes of the downturning spout?. He gave me an unfounded [and inappropriate] oath over the Holy Treasures . . . that he would not . . . [nor] have recourse to accusations . . . . . then not to be of equal use to the water conduits. If other . . . . . where they came down to the foundations of my house . . .” (Lines 198–215) When the most God-fearing Stephanos had, through the written memorandum submitted by him, made his plea, the most God-pleasing Theodoros, [after having learned] the accusation, also then presented his defense to this, saying as follows: “My opponent should have, according to the old [custom] . . . For I would have wished to, after he had bound himself by an oath, . . . But he did not deem it necessary to . . . . . [but] inappropriately and falsely . . . . . of saying . . . . . controversy . . . . . the door of my [house] . . . . . to have . . . of the mortgage? given . . . . . if he thinks he can still save himself before satisfying [me] by oath . . . us, he accuses or blames us, on the condition that he bring evidence against us in written form also to you, or satisfy us. When you have settled (the matter) according to what seems [right to you], I ask [you] to judge manifestly that . . . . . he is guilty of . . . . . (Lines 218–33) . . . but lying that in the . . . submitted by me we did [not] think anything sensible, he failed to take care of the said house . . . the said mortgage? . . . the ruin? of my inherited property here, and that in my absence the materials of the same house had been taken by some people, whom I do not know. For you inspected the same house . . . . . that he did not . . . want to strengthen? . . . [nor] the neighbors? . . . to them and . . . . . of the outbuilding. According to his self-willed way of thinking? . . . . . he considers inappropriately that [my] judgment . . . nor has he for fifty-three years [cared] for my rights but, as I already said in my (presentation), he blames me in his plea that I did not care for the well-being of my [house]. With the right of . . . I answer to the slander [which] the prior of this garrison [presented], that when the same house had fallen into ruins, . . . [not] completely . . . and when nothing was left in it or . . . . . (Lines 238–45) . . . as I said already in the preceding (presentation), [I am entitled to have] . . . the outbuilding and the refuse pit . . . the said ill-timed and unjust plea . . . . . my rights, he will go further in his . . . and insults accusing me . . . having the other [part] and says, what is not true, [that] . . . the men from this garrison who have been misusing my house and . . . thirteen? years ago because of the neglect of its care . . . . . (Lines 248–71) If (reaching) such ill-advisedness . . . about my care because it is not . . . be busy with all kinds of . . . of the foundations of the . . . For if the ill-timed and idle plea of my opponent . . . . . My opponent, as soon as he learned about the surveys?, should have been persuaded?. And so far this is true. You know that when we were . . . the most God-pleasing . . . as security . . . to be paid in full . . . . . the stable . . . . . if ever . . . . . the . . . securities . . . tried to . . . to such . . . Because if this were allowed to whosoever wishes, many people would be deprived of their own rights by the ill-doing of those who wish, nay, who desire to have property belonging to others, just as he? aspires to that . . . . . and I ask Your God-pleasing (Highness) to [grant] preferably to me the said house complex and the refuse pit as far as the street of [the house complex] according to my [memorandum] (read) in the beginning. Finally, when the [inspection] had been made with the assent of [us] both, to you . . . . . and when [you] said together with the men who accompanied you that [I have (the area) from the] doorposts of the outbuilding of my opponent and the . . . north of the old foundation. I ought to have my outbuilding and the right of the refuse pit belonging to me, which you have inspected.” (Lines 271–80) To the . . . thus . . . (Stephanos said): “. . . the building made by us . . . with my builder the agreement on price concluded between myself and him, and . . . the refuse pit . . . . . such a deed of sale . . . . . that he did not give to me, when I asked again about my outbuilding, the document of the agreement on the defense of the plot concluded between himself and Gregoria and her husband Kassisaios, nor did he produce it for you, the judges, who urge (one) to testify what is right, but . . . . . (Lines 281–95) . . . unjust and [ill-timed] . . . and we strived . . . At first, I did not want. . . to you . . . happen and to the said refuse pit . . . to put together with him . . . foundation . . . . . let be completed . . . . . my builders . . . . . and we present to you my deed of sale in hand . . . we guaranteed to each other with pledges given . . . by us . . . . . and when the measurement was made, he was condemned by yourselves to build the [other] part . . . the necessary emptying and cleaning of [the said] refuse receptacle (rupodexamene). (Lines 296–304) . . . . . assent . . . . . worked . . . of the refuse pit, to which I supposed, on grounds of this right of the same house complex, also the other two-thirds to belong, and as the use of the refuse pit is necessary to the house, let it remain in common, but let it be built as it should. After that, he tried to hinder? the builders as if angered by some people . . . . . the refuse pit, and making [an effort] I strove well . . . to build and cover my part of [the same] refuse receptacle . . . (Lines 305–19) But later, when I tried to . . . to the builders of [my] opponent, in order that . . . more . . . . . because [my] builders rebuild . . . as overshadowing his house. As I do not know whether this is a rightful claim, if not (perhaps) Theodoros, son of Petros, has [thought so?] and the other neighbors have said and those who always make the passage through the street have made unwritten accusations concerning the house complex on the pretext of . . . . . us to build in order that I would not . . . . . concerning the [same] . . . his builder . . . to you. The reason is, as I suspect, [that he did not like] that I would get passage there and have a right in the refuse pit because of the said . . . . . and because my opponent does not want to build the other part of the refuse pit in a way fair to me and cover it, on the pretext that neither of us has the right of passage through the part of the other or a share in it. (Lines 320–27) . . . is not at hand. As he cannot claim too much?, he said that . . . not to erect? nor . . . If not . . . that he shall satisfy (me) through an oath that he has measured in a rightful way. But he . . . of my outbuilding, and concerning the interference . . . did not . . . the . . . given by him . . . to be uncovered? and that which was not . . . . . part . . . he said to you in chicanery . . . . . speaking maliciously for the most part. Finally, he . . . [from] building or renovating the refuse pit. (Lines 327–34) As the neighbors witnessed that this (i.e., the building) had happened as said and as he justly lost his right, he insulted? me inappropriately and unjustly, (saying) that it is [not] permitted to build either my part or the other part of the refuse pit [and] . . . four or five. . . to come . . . . . and he did not fail to notice? at the beginning, for to him . . . . . to read aloud also the translation of the plea.” (Lines 334–48) To this . . . Theodoros . . . . . : “. . . of rights . . . have the opinion . . . . . which is under the vault of my outer house situated to the north . . . he admitted that they had taken doors from my house . . . And now in the present plea . . . this, when my opponent instituted (an action) . . . right . . . . . of the matter, if . . . not to be false . . . . . the builders . . . . . house . . . . .” (Lines 350–77) (Stephanos said): “. . . . . having recourse to insult, but to the said phylarch . . . the right . . . my other deed of sale . . . . . but not for a long time . . . . . that it is not true to . . . these usages? . . . he should not have committed such chicanery against us . . . . . but to the other . . . . . as [my] opponent gave evidence in a distorted and slanderous way. [Therefore] I now ask . . . to this . . . [the most God-pleasing] Sergios . . . . . of which he presents in written form the same evidence in Greek and Syriac letters . . . . . My opponent, however, . . . to this as if he would have the decision, [and neither] does he grant the use of the same spout to which I am entitled nor . . . to be condemned? . . . . . which have been instituted [by my opponent] . . . . . water conduit . . . . . to present to me the provisional decision, in order to make manifest [the sale] made by Kassisaios and [his] wife Gregoria, nor did he [manifestly show] that after it was made, it was [included in the decisions] given to you . . . he should have . . . but he . . . the said . . . . .” (Lines 378–89) In his following speech the most God-pleasing [Theodoros] said: “When I was away . . . he made . . . of the refuse pit. What he thought [was, as] I suspect, that he should . . . have the stable and the [plot of Kassisaios and] Gregoria on grounds of the deed (made) through the said [most God-pleasing Sergios.] Concerning the . . . it was clear even before this, on the strength of the said documents, that [I? have] the right of passage to the said plot. Since he mentioned my house, it is necessary to . . . Inside the house complex there took place a second . . . : here . . . the place of the spout where, as has been said, was the [said] device sending away the water of my spout. He was persuaded by my preceding words that this [was] true.” (Lines 390–416) . . . . . the most God-pleasing Stephanos . . . : “. . . that the [heirs] of Kassisaios [and Gregoria] . . . . . that Kassisaios and [his] wife Gregoria had striven, through the . . . made by them to the plot of my outbuilding, to add a clause? (demanding?) the demolition of the building . . . with the notion which would follow unhindered as a prejudice . . . the rights. You know that according to the contract made . . . . . written (documents) . . . [for] twenty-seven years protecting my rights, even if he says that, as some people here testify, I encroached upon the said stable and turning out Kassisaios and Gregoria . . . [the heirs] of Kassisos and Gregoria . . . to it (i.e., the stable) . . . . . they do not cause any disadvantage to my rights . . . the plea concerning such a building project . . . time. He ought to have demonstrated that I . . . before . . . Because, as [I] pleaded . . . pointing out? that the written document was safe, . . . to make any encroachment into the said stable in defense of my said plot, about which I . . . assenting . . . of the building . . . of my house [from] its roof up to the coping and of the . . . beside it, . . . along the said course of the water channel . . . after some time against our said right . . . of the sale made . . . he must willingly refrain from the examination of the encroachment made to the said house complex. (Lines 417–29) . . . . . my opponent . . . from documents . . . . . that [the heirs?] of the said Kassisaios and Gregoria defend me. [If he does not] abandon his perjuries, I am compelled to lay hold [of the outbuilding] and concerning it either to take to myself the possession of his property and to [duly] . . . , [or] . . . to cede myself the said outbuilding which has been pledged to me as defense. Therefore I also ask you to store for me, as I wish, among the decisions written by you, the decision of the present suit, (made) as you [consider] to deem [to be] right. After that it is possible for [us]—if, as [I suspect], my opponent does not have the [provisional decision] mentioned several times—to stick to the defense. And if my opponent, in addition to the other . . . has in this matter attacked me without written evidence, he really wants to . . . (Lines 430–43) As regards the contract made between himself and Kassisos the Son, which he presented to you at the beginning of the suit, it is clear, according to the examination of the matter, that he did not say that from the decree? of Sooudothe, [my niece], he failed to mention the . . . that it is possible to divert the said spout with the full assent of both parties. As I exhorted you to read and take upon yourselves the consequence, I ask you to make the decision that the document shall be brought forward once again and that its full force be made valid. And I do not know what he thought when he attacked us. Since these rights have once been made manifest, (I ask you) to take care that I can, as until now, adhere to the said defense according to the same contract of defense. Therefore I again ask you to acknowledge its [full] force. (Lines 443–49) As I now have presented all my pleas against those spoken by my opponent, I ask Your God-pleasing (Highness) both to write everything into the said roll, and to declare to my opponent the matter as you have, according to what you have deemed to be right, made your decision between us, and to pronounce the right verdict, thus being worthy of praise.” (Lines 449–60) And after lots of contention, they finally, with the assent of both parties, came to the decision over these matters that the most reverend Theodoros, son of Obodianos, shall have (the area) from the eastern doorpost of the door of the outbuilding of the most God-pleasing Stephanos, son of Leontios, and of Theodoros, son of Mouses, and towards the east because the old foundations have been set as the boundary there, and Stephanos, son of Leontios, (shall have the area) outside the door towards the west and north and south, and the refuse pit they shall share in the relation of two to one, (so that) Stephanos, son of Leontios, (has) two thirds and Theodoros, son of Obodianos, the remaining third part, that is, the northern part, and if both of them agree, they can jointly? build between themselves a dividing wall (?) in the same refuse pit or refuse receptacle. (Lines 460–75) Concerning the spout (coming) from the roofs it was decided that the most reverend Theodoros can, according to the old custom, conduct the waters from the most reverend Stephanos’ roof, sold to Leontios, son of Thanamounos, and that Stephanos also himself can conduct the waters of the spout from the roofs of the above-mentioned most God-fearing Theodoros, son of Obodianos, according to the old custom, as was witnessed by the most God-pleasing Sergios, son of Basileios, priest and country bishop, in their presence and with the assent of both parties, in the outbuilding of the most God-fearing Stephanos, son of Leontios, which had been taken from the most blessed Kassisaios, son of Horion. If the same most God-fearing Stephanos, son of Leontios, or one of his heirs, happens to wish (to build) the same outbuilding where is the spout of the most Godfearing Theodoros, son of Obodianos, it is not allowed to the same most reverend Theodoros, son of Obodianos, nor to his heirs, to prohibit them from building and covering, but Stephanos and his heirs can without risk draw and conduct the waters from the roofs of Theodoros, son of Obodianos, and he cannot prohibit the building of the same outbuilding above the roof of the same outbuilding (by Stephanos) with his heirs and successors. (Lines 475–85) Concerning the timber and stone and doors and the encroachment, of which the aforementioned most God-fearing Theodoros, son of Obodianos, had brought an accusation, it was decided that the most reverend Stephanos, son of Leontios, shall swear an oath to the above-mentioned Theodoros in the sacred shrine of the holy and glorious martyr Kerykos here in Zadakatha, and say that “by these Holy Scriptures, I do not know nor am I aware that anything has been taken of the timber and stone and doors of your house, neither do I know of any encroachment into the same house,” and if he assents, he has made his defense against everything before the most reverend Theodoros, son of Obodianos, first taking from Theodoros himself the oath of calumny. (Lines 485–95) Concerning the two solidi, of which Stephanos, son of Leontios, had brought an accusation against the most reverend Theodoros, when he said that (the latter) had promised to pay (them) to Leontios, his most blessed father, for the vineyard, as was decreed by the phylarch Abu Cherebos, it was decided that the most reverend Theodoros shall swear an oath to the most reverend Stephanos in the [sacred] shrine of the holy and glorious martyr Kerykos, and say that “by these Holy Scriptures, I never promised or decided to pay anything to your most blessed father because of the affair of the vineyard,” and if he assents to the oath, it is clear that he has satisfied Stephanos in everything, when Stephanos himself has given to Theodoros the oath concerning calumny. (Lines 496–97) And if Theodoros has been disadvantaged (?), he shall not suffer damage from the decision, in the case that he is right against the heirs of Kassisos, son of Horion, and possesses the provisional decision. (Lines 498–500) (6. H.) † I, Theodoros, son of Alpheios, deacon, decided as above, together with the most honorable Thomas, son of Boethos, as seems right to us, and accordingly signed with my own hand. † (Lines 501–3) (7. H.) † I, Flavius Thomas, son of Boethos, prior, decided as above, together with the most reverend Theodoros, son of Alpheios, archdeacon, as seemed and was right to us, and accordingly signed with my own hand. † (Lines 504–14) (8. H.) † I, Theodoros, son of Obodianos, deacon, accepted the divine decision, and consenting to what is written through it in case of perjury, I shall stand by and do and keep (my promise) and do assent to the agreement at the suggestion of Theodoros, son of Alpheios. If I oppose and refuse to do this, I admit that I am liable to the penalty of one and a half solidi minus four carats which has been determined between myself and you, the most God-pleasing Stephanos, son of Leontios, through the mediation of the most God-pleasing Hierios, son of Thomallos, priest, according to the document made between us on the sureties placed by him, and I signed with my own hand. † (Lines 515–23) (9. H.) † I, Stephanos, son of Leontios, deacon, accepted the divine decision, and consenting to what is written through it, I shall stand by and do and keep (my promise) and do assent to the agreement at the suggestion of Thomas. If I oppose and refuse to do this, I admit that I am liable to the penalty of one solidus minus four carats which has been determined between me and you, the most God-pleasing Theodoros, son of Obodianos, through the mediation of the most God-pleasing Hierios, son of Thomallos, priest, according to the document made between us on the sureties placed by him, and I signed with my own hand.