Episkepsis was a Roman administrative practice of inspecting immovable property to determine or update its condition and value.
Bonneau 1964, Bonneau 1972: 89–95; Bonneau 1983; Kruse 2002: 281–306; Jördens 2009: 103–20. On the lease of state land, see Jördens 2009: 468–77. On the members of the commission, see Kruse 2002: 284–306. On this term, see Kruse 2015, 155 with n.6.
In preparation for the upcoming revision, local officials compiled preliminary land surveys or ‘roadmaps’, πορεία πρὸς ἐπίσκεψιν. Examples of such surveys include P.Giss.Univ. 6 52.3 (222/3, Arsinoite), SB 26 16414.3 (219/20, Arsinoite), PSI 7 796.3 (222/3, Arsinoite), P.Iand. 7 136.3 (135/6, Oxyrynchite). See also a report on submission of such a survey in P.Congr. 15 15.17–18 (80, Karanis), a promise to submit it as part of the preparation in P.Congr. 15 15.60, and references to it in official correspondence, e.g. P.Laur. 3 63.8 (159, Oxyrhynchite). Following the revision, the commission produced finalised registers that recorded the results of the episkepsis. These registers often contain special notes added against each entry in a different hand. The main formula used in these inspector’s annotations is ἐπεσκέφθη, usually abbreviated to the first two letters, with pi taking its abbreviated, lunate form: ε. On this abbreviation, see Sijpesteijn and Worp 1993: 11.
One of the most prominent examples of episkepsis registers is P.Pher. 1. With the correct interpretation in Hagedorn 1997 and Rathbone 1995. On the structure of the entries, see Alessandrì 2015: 13, 105–106. On the five-year period of lease, op. cit.: 115–122
In almost all entries assessing land (as opposed to houses), the five-year period is interrupted in the third year, when the plots were not inundated (ἀβρόχου), and thus no rent was payable to the fiscus that year. In the fourth year, rent resumed as before, with the formula: δ (ἔτους) τῶν προτελ(ουμένων). The genitive here is best understood as a genitivus pretii, i.e., ‘in the year 4 – the rent is as previously paid’. The same principle applies to other genitive phrases in this formula, such as: (δραχμῶν) η, ‘at the rate of 8 dr.’; τῶν δημ(οσίων), ‘for (payment of) taxes,’ etc.
At the end of each entry, there is an inspector’s annotation that verifies the rent rate and confirms its validity for the next lease period. For this structure, see Alessandrì 2015: 19.
In this survey, the inspector’s annotation appears three times, each time confirming the status of the plots under revision as unsown land:
The annotation can be translated as: “Upon revision: the same as above.”
In this fragment of a register of houses, the annotation refers to the assessment from the 8th year, which was likely the year of the ongoing revision:
ἐ]π(εσκέφθη) ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ η (ἔτους), “Upon revision: as in the 8th year.”
In the second annotation preserved on this papyrus, the inspector confirms the amount of 8 drachmas recorded in the main entry, which was also assessed in the 8th year, using the following phrase:
ἐπ(εσκέφθη) τῶν ἴσων, “Upon revision: of equal amount.”
These attestations show that the inspector’s annotations confirm the rent assessment recorded in the main entry – whether it reflects the rate established earlier for the ongoing five-year period or, more rarely, results from an update during the ongoing episkepsis. In three further registers, inspectors’ annotations follow this pattern as well: BGU 3 734 (re-edited in Messeri 2022); See also corrections to the text in Sijpesteijn and Worp 1993: 6 n.8 and p. 11, and accepted in Alessandrì 2015: 117, with n.159 (BL 10.16).
At first glance, these two registers of sequestrated or confiscated houses appear to deviate from the usual pattern, in which the inspector’s annotations always confirm the rent recorded in the main entry. However, I will show that the opposite is in fact the case.
In SB 24 15930, the editors read the inspector’s annotations for the first seven entries as ἐπ(εσκέφθη) ϛ/, “é stato ispezionato 6” (ll. 2, 4, 7, 10, 14, 17 and 21), and interpret this number as the amount in drachmas to be collected as rent from each property. However, this interpretation contradicts the descriptions of these properties: five of them are described as vacant, unbuilt plots (ψιλὸς τόπος) from which nothing is collected (ἐξ οὗ μηδὲν περιγίνεται). Moreover, the sigma written with a diagonal stroke above does not conform to the standard practice of indicating sums in drachmas. Instead, it should be corrected to σ(υμφώνως), meaning ‘accordingly’. This abbreviation is attested in several second-century documents, e.g. P.Prag. 1 21.22–23 (181, Soknopaiou Nesos), ZPE 190 (2014) p. 215.19–21 (158, Soknopaiou Nesos). This expression is a standard administrative term in the context of episkepsis, as can be seen from the following examples:
Col. 139.17–18: ἐ[δηλ(ώθη) χε]ρσεύειν | καὶ συμφώνως ἐ[πεσκέφθ(η)], “… fut déclaré comme terre ‘sèche’ et fut trouvé lors de l’inspection dans un état conforme.”
Col. 140.21: τούτων δὲ συμφώνως ἐπ[ισκ(εφθέντων)], “du fait que ces terrains avaient été trouvés dans un état conforme lors de l’inspection…”.
Col. 3.47: ἐπισκ(έψεις) σύμφωναι, “inspections in accord.”
Col. 2.39–40: ἐπισκ(έψεως) χέρσου μὴ σπειρομένης ἴσαι συμφώνως.
P.Hamb. 1 12 (209/10)
Line 15: συμφώνως ἐπι[σκεφθεῖσαι].
An example of identical annotation can be found in the land register P.Ross.Georg. 2 42 (2nd c., Memphite), where σ(υμφώνως) should be read after ἐπ(εσκέφθη) in col. 3.7, 11 and 15. In this papyrus, the annotations are written in the same hand as the rest of the text, suggesting that they were likely copied together with the main entries from an earlier episkepsis register.
Therefore, at SB 24 15930.2, 4, 7, 10, 14 and 21, the inspector confirmed that the buildings were to remain without generating income. The same corrections apply to SB 24 15934. In the inspector’s annotation in l. 3, the editors printed ἐπ(εσκέφθη) ϛ/, whereas it should read ἐπ(εσκέφθη) σ(υμφώνως).
This is another register of state property (land and buildings) that contains inspector’s annotations beginning with the abbreviation ἐπ(εσκέφθη) in ll. 6, 14, 18, 23, 28 and 33. The sign following it in ll. 14, 18, 23, and 28 cannot represent the amount of rent in drachmas. First, three of four corresponding entries (except for the one in ll. 24–27) describe vineyards and olive groves. Therefore, it is to be expected that the revenue from these agricultural properties would be collected, at least in part, in kind; cf. P.Marm. R Col. 7.8–12; P.Iand. 7.142 Col. 1.23–29 (164/5, Kysis).
Second, the two of the plots are explicitly stated to yield no revenue. In l. 12, the vineyard appears to be uncultivated, ἐν χέρσῳ. In l. 26, the revision confirms the absence of income: ἐξ οὗ ἐδηλ(ώθη) μηδὲν δύνασθ(αι) περ[ιγίν(εσθαι).
After consulting a photograph of the papyrus, I suggest reading ἐπ(εσκέφθη) συ(μφώνως) in all four cases. A similar form of abbreviation, reducing the latter word to two letters, followed by a stroke, is attested in BGU 1 192.5–7 (163, Soknopaiou Nesos).
The fragment preserves the right half of a column from a register of land. In l. 6, the editor printed:
(m.2) [--- ἐπ]εσ(κέφθησαν) ἐν ἀβρόχ(ῳ) (m. 1) φό(ρου) (πυροῦ ἀρταβῶν) ε
However, the abbreviation before ἐν ἀβρόχ(ῳ) features a tau written above the line, not a sigma. I suggest reading π]έντ(ε) ἐν ἀβρόχ(ῳ), where the number five corresponds to the number of arouras in the main entry, l. 5: τό(που) Βωμοῦ (ἀρουρῶν) ε. The same structure can be seen in other entries. In l. 9, instead of [--- ἐπ]εσ(κέφθη), the line repeats the number of arouras repeated from the preceding line:
(ἀρούρας) α δ´] η´ λβ´ ἐν ἀβρόχ(ῳ)
In l.12, only the horizontal stroke above the line of the fraction is visible:
(ἀρούρας) α 𐅵 η´ ιβ]´ ἐν ἀβρόχ(ῳ)
Thus, there are no inspector’s annotations preserved in this fragment, although they may have been present in the missing left portion of the vacant lines between the entries, i.e., between ll. 6 and 7, 9 and 10. The structure of the document can be reconstructed as follows: the main entry contains a description of the parcel, including its size, followed by a statement that the entire parcel was not inundated (for a specified period of time, now lost). Subsequently, an assessment is made regarding the revenue to be collected from it (e.g. φόρου πυροῦ ἀρταβῶν ε). This assessment was the result of the ongoing episkepsis.
The editor prints ὑπό after ἐπ(εσκέφθησαν) in ll. 5, 7, 9, 12, and 14, assuming that it is followed by a personal name identifying a member of the episkepsis commission responsible for the assessment. However, I propose ὑπολόγου or ὑπόλογος should be read in all five annotations. In l. 12, the word is abbreviated to the first letter, while in l. 14, it is abbreviated to the first three letters. The structure of the text and the precise function of the annotations remain uncertain due to the fragmentary state of the document. In l. 14, ὑπο( ) is followed by δ̣η̣ which may be resolved as δη(μοσίων), potentially referring to a specific type of episkepsis targeting unproductive land: ἐπ(ίσκεψις) ὑπό(λογος) δημοσίων ἐδαφῶν. For parallels, see P.Brem 12.8–10 (2nd c., Hermopolis), P.Berl.Leihg. 1 14.45 (2nd c., Arsinoite), P.Giss. 1 60 Col. 2.20 (118, Apollonopolis Heptakomias), and P.Oxy. 38 2847.12–13.
The verb ἐπ(εσκέφθη) in inspectors’ annotations is always followed by a phrase that confirms the information provided in the main entry of the register. This phrase may either repeat the amount of rent – whether in money or kind, report the unprofitable status of the property (implying that no revenue could be collected from it), or express general agreement with the data in the entry (e.g. συμφώνως). In cases where the rent amount was updated as a result of the revision, these changes were recorded to the main entry, as in P.Pher. 1.283–286 or P.Bodl. 1 110 R. The inspector’s annotation served as final validation of the assessment, extending it for the next five-year period of lease for future tenants.