¹ I take this opportunity of correcting a few misprints in the last article. P. 91, line 11, δότωσιν read δότωσαν p. 99, line 3, μορτιτής read μορτίτης line 29, ἐφημισίαρικον read ἐφημισάρικον line 41, ἀμελήσως read ἀμελήσας ἠμισιαστής read ἠμισιαστής line 43, αὐτνῶ read αὐτῶν p. 100, line 34, οἰον read οἰον line 43, ἀπόρω read ἀπόρω P; p. 105, line 32, καί ες read καίοντες

² As I do not know Russian, I am unable to estimate the importance of the numerous articles and books which Russian scholars have written on this subject. My only acquaintance with their work is derived from a useful analysis of it by Palmieri, P. A., A proposito dell' economia agricola dell' impero Bizantino in Rivista storicocritica delle scienze teologiche, Anno II, pp. 291–6, Roma, 1906Google Scholar (I am indebted for this reference to Mr. Norman H. Baynes).

³ There are one or two more headings in isolated MSS. See my apparatus criticus at νδ νς ξη and οβ

⁴ It is worth noticing that the version in the Ecloga agrees very closely with the version of Dorotheus, given in Sch. Bas., lx. 3Google Scholar, 30, 3 (V. 5, p. 304, Heimbach).

⁵ In B.G.U. 651 (A.D. 192) a man complains that his threshing-floor has been burnt by unknown persons—ἐνετρήσθη μου ἄλων ὐπό τινων οὔς καὶ ἀγνοῶ This is evidently a private threshing-floor. In the LXX. and Byzantine writers ἄλων is sometimes used in the plural of corn iti stacks: Exod. xxii. 6; Durasi, , Hist. Byz. 34. p. 246, Bonn.Google Scholar

⁶ The compilers of the Basilica, , after repeating Dig. xlvii. 9, 9Google Scholar, add εἰ δὲ ἔξω πόλεως τοῦτο διαπράξεται χειροκοπεῖται (lx. 39, 6). Is this derived from c. 65?

⁷ This must mean that they continued to συντελεῖν in the place from which they came. It was there that they were συντελεσταί (Just. Nov. 163, c. 1). If this is the meaning, the passages may be compared with our cc. 18, 19.

⁸ Commoner Byzantine translations of extraordinaria are ἐξτραορδινάρια (Bas. vi. 31, 2 from Cod. xii. 23, 1) and ἔξω τῶν ὡρισμένων (Bas. Iv. 1, 1 from Cod. xi. 48, 1, and Bas. lvi. 15, 18 from Cod. xi. 75, 1).

⁹ The system under which the cultivator pays as rent an aliquot part of the produce—one-half, one-third, or a greater or less proportion—is seldom referred to in the literary or legal sources of the classical period. The examples generally cited are Cato, , R. R. 137Google Scholar; Plin., , Ep. ix. 37Google Scholar; Dig. xix. 2, 25, 6. But it was evidently far more frequent then than these scattered texts would suggest. Lex de Villae Magnae colonis in Bruns, , Fontes, p. 295Google Scholar; see Cuq (Édouard), Le cotonai partiaire dans l' Afrique Romaine in Mémoires présentés à l'Acad. des Inner., l^reS.T. xi. l^re P. pp. 83–146. It is found all over Italy in the early Middle Ages. Examples of tenancy on the footing of an equal division (to confine ourselves to that) are: Memorie e doeumenti per servire alla storia di Lucca, T. v. P. 2. Doc. 140 (A.D. 772), 144 (A.D. 773); Cod. dip. Cavensis, T. I., No. 123 (A.D. 907), No. 183 (A.D. 953); Regii Neap. Archivi Monumenta, No. 126 (A.D. 968), No. 154 (A.D. 973). Tenancy ad partem is referred to in the Dalmatian statutes: St. Ragus. v. 30; St. Buduae, 34, 44; St. Lesinae, 21, p. 186. de Coulanges, Fustel (Recherches sur quelques problèmes d'histoire, Paris, 1885, p. 177Google Scholar) gives examples from the French Polyptyques. It is not necessary, therefore, with von Rumohr, C. F. (Ursprung der Besitzlosigkeit des Colonen im neueren Toscana, Hamburg, 1830, p. 133Google Scholar) to attribute an Eastern origin to the Tuscan mezzeria. It may well be indigenous in Italy. As regards the tenant's obligations linder the Tuscan contract of mezzeria, see (for the fourteenth century) Catellacci, (Dante) Tre scritte di mezzeria in volgare del secolo xiv. in Arch. Stor. Ital. S.v.T. xi. (1893), p. 378Google Scholar; (for the present time) (Janet), RossOld Florence and Modern Tuscany, London, 1904, p. 211Google Scholar.

¹⁰ On the title in P. see Heimbach (C.W.E.) in his Griechisch-römisches Recht im Mittelalter, p. 279; Proleg. Basil, p. 32. In the former work he suggests that the jurists whose names follow the Digest are those from whose fragmenta in the Digest the provisions of our Law are derived. It is more probable that the author of the title took the names at random from some list of the authorities for the Digest, such as is given in the Florentine MS. (See Mommsen's larger ed. i. p. lii*). I would read in P.: μακροῦ (for μάρκου), οὐλπιανοῦ (for ὁλυμ πιανοῦ), μοδεστίνου (for ὀδέστου ἐρμογενιανοῦ καὶ παύλου

¹¹ The point is disputed, but I agree with the arguments of Bekker, E. M., Aktionen des Römischen Privatrechts, i. p. 236Google Scholar, n, 26, which are accepted by Girard, P. F., Manuel de Droit Romain ⁴, p. 631.Google Scholar

¹² Cp. Ed. Roth. 354, si quis oampum alienum arauerit, seîens non suum, aut semen tem spargere presnmpserit, perdat opera et frugis.

¹³ Cp. Dig. x. 1, 7 pr. de modo agrorum ar bitri dantur et is qui maiorem locum in territorio habere dicitur ceteris qui minorem locum possident, integrum locum adsignare compellitur; Theod. xiii. 11, 10; Rudorff, , Grom. Inst. p. 445.Google ScholarΜερισμός μερισία might refer, not to the division of the common-land among the settlers, but to the apportionment of the general taxes among the tax-payers; the former explanation is far more probable.

¹⁴ The comparison of this c. with c. 21 shows that here the tenant enters with the land owner's approval. Occupation free of rent for three years seems an inadequate reward to the farmer for his exertions in clearing the land. As a rule, in improvement leases in the early middle ages (see those in Regii Neapolitani Archivi Monumenta) the tenant is given a much longer period of exclusive enjoyment. But three years is sometimes found. Farmers who take unproductive land (γῆ ὐπόλογος) are relieved from taxation for three years εἰς τὴν τούτων ἀναγωγὴν καὶ κατεργασίαν P. Amherst. ii. 68, line 21; P. Oxy. iv. 721. In a lease from a monastery of A.D. 616 (P. Lond. ii. 483, p. 327) χέρσος γῆ is granted free of rent for three years (see note of editors). Cp. Theod. v. 11, 8; Cod. xi. 59 (58) 1, triennii immunitate percepta. The same term is occasionally found in the Neapolitan documents: e.g. R.N.A.M. 167—lease of A. D. 977; cp. also St. Ragus. v. 29 qui terram suam desertam, id est lidignam (i.e. laeticam) alteri dederit ad laborandum, usque ad tercium fructum completum ipsam laboratori tollere non potest.

¹⁵ οἰ ἀπαιτούμενοι τῷ δημοσίῳ λόγῳ are the same people who if they fail to pay become οἰ προσωφειληκότες τῷ δημοσίῳ λόγῳ (Edict of Ti. Julius Alexander in Bruns, Fontes⁷ p. 245). Other examples of ὁ δημοσίος λόγος in Gelzer, , Studien, p. 94Google Scholar, n. 1.

¹⁶ This rule corresponds closely to L. Visig. x. i, 6; L. Burgund, xxxi. The law of Justinian and of the Lombards is different; Cod. viii. 4, 11; Ed. Roth. 151. C. 66 appears to refer to the same subject.

¹⁷ Cp. c. 62. Cedren p. 458 Par. = 801 Bonn. κεράτια δὲ αἰ ιβ᾿ φόλλεις ὠνομάσθησαν

¹⁸ Thefts of an ox-bell or sheep-bell are frequently referred to in the Germanic codes. L. Visig. vii. 2, 11 with Zeumer's note; L. Burg. iv. 5; Ed. Roth. 289. But in no case is there any reference to the thief's liability for consequential damage. With the latter clause Cp. c. 55 and c. 75.

¹⁹ Same law in Dig. xliii. 27, 1, 6 (see also Cod. viii. 1, 1) but not confined to a κῆπος

²⁰ The ὀπωροφύλαξ may be appointed by the farmer to guard the fruit from thieves; but he may also be appointed by the landlord to ensure an equal division of the fruit between landlord and tenant, where a farm is cultivated on shares. Plin., Ep. ix. 37Google Scholar medendi una ratio si non nummo sed partibus locem ac deinde ex meis aliquos operis exactores, custodes fructibus ponam; Lex de villae Magnae colonie (Bruns, , Fontes ⁷, p. 298Google Scholar) eorum agrorum fructus conductoribus uilicisue eius dare debebunt; custodes exigere debebunt; P. Oxy. iv. 729 ὄν δὲ ἐἀν βούληται ὁ Σαραπιὼν (lessor) ὀπωροφύλακα φυ λάσσιν τῷ τῆς ὀπώρας καίρῳ φύλακα πέμψει τοῦ ὀψωνίου ὔντος πρὸς αὐτόν

²¹ Or ‘selling the milk’

²² Cp. L. Visig. viii. 4, 9; L. Burg. iv. 8; civ.

²³ This c., which should be compared with cc. 48 and 85, is in accordance with Roman law. Dig. ix. 2, 39, 1; and see notes on later chapters.

²⁴ According to Dig. ix. 2, 31 a putator, who, in cutting off a branch, carelessly kills a passer-by, is liable under the lex Aquilia. L. Visig. viii. 3 extends the same principle to injuries done to animals: si…pecudem fortasse ruina huius arboris debilitauerit uel Occident, pro quadrupe uno domino alium einsdem meriti mox reformet.

²⁵ Cp. L. Visig. viii. 3, 17 si labia pecoribus uel aures qni in fructibus suis comprehenderit incident, illa que deforrnauit obtineat, et domino pecorum alia sana restituere non moretur.

²⁶ This c. and the obscure c. 53—the text of both is rather doubtful—insist on the necessity of three trespasses before the person damaged acquires the right of killing the animal trespassing. There are authorities in the Germanic codes to this or a like effect. L. Visig. viii. 5, 1 (of pigs found trespassing in a wood); viii. 5, 5 (same law applied si in pascua grex alienus intraverit seu ovium sive vacearum); L. Burg. xxiii. 4 si cuiuscumque porci damnum faciunt in vineis, pratis ac messibus cultis et silvis glandiferis, et admonitus poreorum dominus bis fuerit ut porcos suos custodiat et noluerit, the person damaged may kill the best pig; lxxxix. 3 vacca vero post tertiam conventionem, si in vinea inventa fuerit, occidatur a vineae domino similiter praesumenda. On the importance in Roman and other law of the number three, see a review by Gaston, May in N.R.H. de droit français et étranger, 1911, pp. 89–98.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cp. Ed. Roth. 305 (ρνγ in Greek version) si quis fossatum circa campum suum fecerit et cauallus aut alter peculius ibidem ceciderit. non requiratur ab ipso cuius fossatnm inuenitur esse.

²⁸ Cp. Ed. Roth. 304 (ρνβ′ in Greek version) si cauallus aut quislibet peculius in clausura alterius intus saliendum se inpalauerit non reddatur ab ipso cuius sepem est; L. Baiuw. xiv. 1.

²⁹ This agrees strictly With Roman law; Cod. iii. 35, 5; Dig. ix. 2, 29, 7.

³⁰ Cp. Dig. xlvii. 7, 2, pr. sciendum est autem eos qui arbores et maxime uites ceciderint etiam tamquam latrones puniri.

³¹ ῾ ὄσπριον is a comprehensive word,’ say the learned editors of P. Tebtunis I at p. 288 ‘including all sorts of pulse and even mustard.’ In P. Leipzig 21, 1. 20 and B.G.U. iv. 1092, 1. 18 ὄσπρια are used of barley.

³² Cp. Ed. Roth. 296 (ομς in Greek version) si quis super tres uuas de uinea alienam tulerit, eonponat solidos sex; nam si usque tres tulerit, nulla sit illi culpa. Perhaps both provisions are based on Levit. xix. 9, 10; Deut, xxiii. 24; xxiv. 19–22.

³³ ζυγὸν ἤ ἔτερα is the best supported reading, but there is some variety in the tradition. I do not like ἤ ἔτερα perhaps we should read ζυγόταυρα—a word which is found in P. Fior. ii. 167, 256, and which evidently means the yoke for a pair of oxen. Cp. P. Fior. ii. 134 το ταυρικον αμα τω αροτρω και τη υνι

³⁴ The words ὠς εἰς τὰ ἴδια . . κτίσαντες were evidently found difficult by the scribes, but a comparison with c. 21 makes the meaning clear.

³⁵ The text and meaning here are doubtful. A reference to the app. crit. will show that I have altered the MS. text which I do not understand, although Zachariä succeeds in construing it; Op. cit. p. 251, n. 823. I do not think that this chapter refers to a case where the lender takes possession of property pledged to him to secure the interest on a loan and where the yearly rents and profits go against interest and (so far as they exceed it) go to sink the principal debt (Cod. iv. 24, 1). The chapter in my opinion presupposes a contract of antichresis (Dig. xx. 1, 11, 1). There are many examples in the papyri. The lender by virtue of the contract in lieu of interest either (a) enjoys the fruits of the borrower's laud (B.G.U. i. 101 ἀντὶ τῶν τούτων τόκων συγκεχωρηκέναι σοι σπείρειν καὶ καρπίζεσθαι καὶ ἀποφέρειν εἰς τὸ ἴδιον B.G.U. i. 339; P. Leipzig, 10, instead of interest the borrower gives καρπείαν καὶ διαμίσθωσιν καὶ πρόσοδον πᾶσαν or (b) dwells in the borrower's house (P. Oxy. viii. 1105, ἐπ᾿ ἐνοικ´σι ἀντὶ τῶν τόκων B.G.U. iv. 1115, where the loan is described as ἄτοκος). In B.G.U. iv. 1055 where the loan is described as ἄτοκος the milk supplied by the borrower goes in discharge of the principal; ἐφ᾿ ᾦ καὶ the lender ὐπολογήσει τὴν τοῦ σταμμνοῦ τιμὴν ἐς τὸ προκίμενον κεφάλαιον The object of the chapter seems to be to ensure that in contracts of antiehresis, part at least of the rents and profits shall go in discharge of the principal debt; I can give no parallel; it may be based on Deut. xv. 2.

³⁶ The difference between πίθος ληνός and βουττίον is this. The ληνός is the vat in which the grapes are pressed; the πίθος or βουττίον the jar or cask in which the wine is kept. Bas. xliv. 10, ήή Ps-Theod. Hermopolites in Ducange, s.v. βοῦττις

³⁷ The use of false measures is often described as impious by mediaeval legislators, no doubt on the authority of Levit. xix. 35; Deut. xxv. 13–16. In the Livre du Préfet, winesellers who use deficient measures are beaten, shorn, and expelled from the corporation (xix. 4, p. 56).

³⁸ Cp. Dig. ix. 2, 11, 5.

³⁹ Cp. Cod. iii. 35, 6 (on which is based Bas. lx. 3, 63 Theod.); L. Visig. viii. 3, 10 with Zeumer's note; L. Burg, xxvii. 4. See also Exod. xxii. 5.

⁴⁰ This chapter is in accordance with Roman and other authorities. Dig. ix. 2, 39, 1 quamuis alienum pecus in agro suo quis deprehendit, sic illud expellere debet, quomodo si suum deprehendisset…uel abigere debet sine damno uel admonere dominum ut suum recipiat; L. Visig. viii. 3, 13 si quis caballum ant pecus alienum in uinea…inuenerit, non expellat iratns…Si pecora, dum per iracundia inmoderationis expellit, euerterit, he keeps them and makes good their value to their owner; L. Baiuw. xiv. 3; Ed. Roth. 304. L. Burg, xxiii. 2 seems to be contrary.