Miscellanea papirologica

M I S C E L L A N E A P A P Y R O L O G I C A

I

P . M I C H . I N V . 4 7 0 3 A N D D O T I S D I C T I O I N R O M A N L A W

T h i s L a t i n p a p y r u s has been a l r e a d y twice edited and

extensively c o m m e n t e d o n : first by H e n r y A. Sanders, A

Soldier's Marriage Certificate, Proc. Amer. Philos. Society,

vol. L X X X I , 1939, pp. 581ff., and two years later, in a

re-vised edition by R o b e r t O . F i n k , The Sponsalia of a

Classi-arius, a Reinterpretation of P. Mich. Inv. 4703, Trans.

Amer. Philol. Ass., vol. L X X I I , 1941, pp. 109ff. B o t h

authors dealt p r i n c i p a l l y w i t h the question w h a t k i n d of

con-tract is e m b o d i e d in this m u t i l a t e d papyrus, p r e s e

r

v e d only

in its first half and even there with considerable gaps, b u t

they a r r i v e d at very d i f f e r e n t results. W h i l e the first a u t h o r

saw in it a m a r r i a g e contract, the latter qualified it as a

be-t r o be-t h a l agreemenbe-t. N e i be-t h e r of be-them, however, a p p r o a c h e d

the question w h a t this p a p y r u s , not u n i m p o r t a n t in spite of

its bad conditions, does c o n t r i b u t e to our k n o w l e d g e of the

so-called dotis dictio, the R o m a n f o r m of constitution of a

d o w r y . In this r e g a r d the f e w lines of o u r p a p y r u s can be

exploited w i t h profit, and t h e r e f o r e , some r e m a r k s on this

p o i n t may not be superfluous, all the m o r e so, t h a t they w i l l

lead to another solution of the p r o b l e m e x a m i n e d so

thor-o u g h l y in the instructive articles mentithor-oned h e r e t thor-o f thor-o r e .

T h e dotis dictio

1

was an oral promise of a d o w r y invested

in certa ас sollemnia verba. I t was doubtlessly older than the

promissio dotis w h i c h was also an oral p r o m i s e of a d o w r y ,

1 Since my study on the "Dotis Dictio in Roman Law," published 1910

in the Transactions ( R o z p r a w y ) of the storico-philoeophical Class of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Krakow, v. L I I I , pp. 71-204—an abstract from the Polish original appeared in the Bulletin de l' Académie des Sciences

de Cracovie, April 1909, pp. 75-97—no monograph has been written on the

subject. A study prepared by S. Riccobono (see Mélanges Cornil II, 1926, p. 3 0 8 ) , has not yet appeared, if I am well informed. D . Daube's article in

Juridical Review (Edinburgh) v. LI, 1939, p. l l f f . deals only with one

particular species of the dictio and its origin.—For general information text-books of Roman law may suffice.

but in the form of a stipulatio. T h e dictio differed f r o m the

stipulatio in it that it was a unilateral obligatory declaration

by the person who established the dowry and was not

pre-ceded by a question of the person to w h o m the dowry had

to be promised.

Direct sources r e f e r r i n g to the dictio are very scarce since

it was eliminated f r o m Justinian's codification after having

lost its actuality in consequence of a constitution by

Theo-dosius I I , C . T h . I l l , 13, 4 = C.Just. V, 11, 6 (a. 428 A . D . )

which had stated that the validity of a dowry promise di'd

no more depend upon the use of a solemn, prescribed oral

formula. T h e r e f o r e all classical mentions of the dictio dotis

were cancelled by Justinian's compilers and substituted by

promissio or pollicitatio dotis. Consequently genuine

men-tions of dictio are found only in some older legal sources

beyond the Corpus Iuris, and in a few literary texts, as in

Plautus, Terence, Cicero, M a r t i a l , Apuleius, and others.

In view of this scarcity of genuine and authentic

refer-ences the discovery of a new, practical example of dictio,

preserved in a written document, is a welcome enrichment

of our sources and merits therefore our particular attention

all the more so, that it is the only instance of dictio irt the

papyri.

W e are quoting below only those parts of the text which

refer directly to the dictio and omit other indications at

present not important to our remarks, as the description of

the persons involved, the sons' names, etc.

(1) Demetria — (3) tutore auctore Glaucippo — (5)

C(aio) Valerio mil(iti) classis Aug(ustae) Alexandrinae—

(6) cut ante nupta erat, ex quo matrimonio filios pro-(7)

creaverunt—eique dotis suae-(8) nomine dixit deditque in

aestimio vestis et in numerate praesens (9) (amount

il-legible) d[racma~\s, quam dotem dixit se is Valerius

Ge-(10) [melius accepisse . . .].

T o the dictio alludes the passage of vv. 7/8 eique dotis

suae nomine dixit. T h e verb cannot be translated by

"as-signed"2 since it is a j-uridical technical term and the

expres-2 Fink, p. 113.

M I S C E L L A N E A PAPYROLOGICA

15

sion "assign" does not contain the element of a promise. An

exact version should r u n : "promised through dictio."

T h e constitution of the dowry refers to the previous

Demetr.a's marriage with Valerius Gemellus and was not

the basic point of our document. T h e phrase eique—dixit

is the.continuation of the foregoing cui—nupta erat. Eique

refers tc cui, sc. Gemello, in spite of the interruption caused

by the с ause ex quo matrimonio rel. T h e construction is not

perfect, it is true, but this is not amazing at all, since the

doc-ument is written in a vulgar Latin3 and the text is a chain of

not coordinated relative clauses.4 In my opinion, the promise

of the dowry and its fulfilment as well, were juridical acts

which had taken place in connection with the previous

marriage, either before or at its conclusion. At any rate

they were anterior to the transaction embodied in our

papy-rus. T h i s interpretation differs fundamentally f r o m those

presented so f a r which join eique dixit with a non-preserved

word pacta est (Sanders, F i n k ) or sponsa est ( F i n k ) on the

beginning of v. 1, thus attributing to the document the

pur-pose of the constitution of a dowry. It could be said, of

course, that according to our interpretation in v. 8 had to be

expected: dixerat dederatque. Against this eventual

objec-tion it may be observed that the whole syntactical structure

of the document is anything but correct, and that for the

same reason procreaverunt is also incorrect. On the other

hand the phrase cui nupta erat is perfectly corresponding to

the phrase τω γενομένω αυτής àvbpi which is so frequent in

Greek papyri.5 T h e r e f o r e its plusquamperfectum is not

de-cisive for the tense of other verbs in the document. And

fi-8 Sanders, p. 587.

4 H e r e , too, the translation by F i n k , I.e. should be corrected. T h e

c h a n g e of the relative clauses of the text into principal ones ( " s h e w a s his w i f e previously. She has assigned a n d delivered," e t c . ) had to be avoided. T h i s tendency t o w a r d s s e p a r a t i n g the text i n t o independent sentences goes so f a r t h a t even the phrase

quam dotem dixi' se accepisse

( v . 9 / 1 0 ) r u n s in F i n k ' s version as f o l l o w s : " t h e said V . G . acknowledges (sic) the receipt of the d o w r y " which is not correct.

5 C f r . P . O x y . I I , 266, 5 ( M i t t e i s , Chr. 2 9 2 ) and f o r f u r t h e r examples

Preisigke,

IVoerterbuch

s. v.

ylyvopuu,

n r . 12. F r o m later publications c f r . P . P r i n c . I I , 3 1 .

nally, to people w h o violate d f f e r e n t rules of g r a m m a r and

syntax and use such u n c o m m o n expressions as in aestimio or

in numerato praesens,

6

inaccuracies in the use of tenses may

be f o r g i v e n .

A n a l y z i n g the dictio case in our p a p y r u s we state that the

dołem dicens was D e m e t r i a , actually b r i d e or w i f e of G e m e l

-lus. T h e text is t h e r e f o r e in accord with R o m a n rules w h i c h

accorded the capacity f o r dictio to three persons o n l y , . a n d

a m o n g them the w i f e or bride, c f r . U l p . V I , 2; G a i Е р . I I ,

9, 3. T h e object of the dictio was in our case a sum of m o á e y

and clothes, m a y b e a trousseau.

7

A similar c o m b i n a t i o n is

in R o m a n legal sources u n k n o w n ; as dictio objects there

are m e n t i o n e d only estates, slaves and money. I t is, however,

not c o n t r a r y to R o m a n law, c f r . Gai E p . I.e., w h e r e res

mobiles are expressly a d m i t t e d . W e learn f u r t h e r f r o m o u r

p a p y r u s that a p a r t of D e m e t r i a ' s d o w r y ( d o s dicta) was

estimated as indicated by the strange locution in aestimio

w h i c h a p p e a r s h e r e f o r the first time in L a t i n l a n g u a g e .

8

T h e p a p y r u s is also the first e x a m p l e of a dos aestimata

w i t h i n the f r a m e s of a dictio. I t is w o r t h w h i l e m e n t i o n i n g

that the object of the dos dicta aestimata w e r e dresses, a

transaction against w h i c h the R o m a n jurist, U l p i a n , w a r n e d

the husbands, c f r . D i g . X X I I I , 3, lOpr., because in such a

case they w e r e always obliged to pay back the fixed v a l u e

even w h e n the dresses at the restitution of the d o w r y were

w o r n out.

A l l these n e w details show h o w elastic was the prescribed

dictio f o r m u l a : doti tibi erit . . . since it a d m i t t e d even an

aestimatio dotis. W e learn f u r t h e r m o r e s o m e t h i n g n e w f r o m

the linguistical p o i n t of view. T h e locution dotis nomine

dicere (vv. 7-8) does not occur in legal sources. W h e r e in

some i n t e r p o l a t e d texts w h i c h o r i g i n a l l y dealt w i t h dictio,

w e find nomine, it refers to the w o m a n on behalf of w h o m

the d o w r y was constituted, e.g. filiae suae nomine doti

pro-mptere, c f r . D i g . X X I I I , 3, 44 p r . ; 79, 1 ; X X I V , 3, 44, 1.

8 Cfr. infra n. 12, 13.

7 Vestis instead of vestes. Cfr. infra n. 29.

MISCELLANEA PAPYROLOGICA 17

T h e n o r m a l locution is dotem dicere or doti aliquid dicere.

9

T h e legal effect of a dotis dictio was the obligation of the

person w h o dotem dixit, to give the p r o m i s e d d o w r y . O u r

p a p y r u s shows t h a t the f u l f i l m e n t of a dictio obligation

was the datio dotis. F o l l o w i n g the classification by U l p i a n ,

V I , 1 : dos aut datur aut dicitur aut promittitur, w e used to

say that the classical R o m a n law had k n o w n three ways of

establishing a d o w r y : datio, dictio, promissio. A n d , in fact,

the sources distinguished between datio and dictio, w h e n

the d o w r y was p a r t l y given and p a r t l y p r o m i s e d t h r o u g h

dictio c f r . F r . V a t . 100. N o w we see t h a t dalio dotis was

not only a p a r t i c u l a r f o r m of establishing a d o w r y t h r o u g h

its im mediate real d e l i v e r y to the husband or sponsus, b u t

datio was called also the a c c o m p l i s h m e n t of a previous p r o m

-ise of a dowry. T h e M i c h i g a n p a p y r u s p r o v i d e s a f u r t h e r

a r g u m e n t f o r the criticism of U l p i a n ' s classification, not

u n k n o w n in older a u t h o r s ,

1 0

since but the dictio plus the

follow ing delivery of the objects promised {datio) are a f u l l

constitution of a d o w r y . T h i s separation into two distinct

a c t s : the solemn promise, dictio, and its realization, datio,

h a d some legal consequences. F r o m the m o m e n t of the dictio

until the effective d e l i v e r y of the dos dicta the legal bindings

of the person involved w e r e r u l e d by the p r i n c i p l e s

con-c e r n i n g the dicon-ctio. A f t e r the f u l f i l m e n t of the dicon-ctio

obliga-9 Gradenwitz, Interpolationen in den Pandekten, 1887, p. 23'

emplia-•cd th.it a classical jurist did never say do'is nomine dicere. In the Polish ion ( f.my Dotis Dictio I observed, p. 93®, that dotis nomine dicere aliquid

not sound well because of the normal meaning of dicere. Dotis nomine

pr^mitti re aliquid, however, is quite in order. Therefore I supposed that

in Dig. X X I I I , 5, 14, 2 (si fvndum . , . mulier dotis nomine promiserit) the last hree words had been interpolated for doti dixerit. Cfr. Index Interp. ad hJ. Hie P. Mich, requires a correction of that inference inasmuch as only di. rrit had been replaced by promiserit. For the same reason I am today not so sure, as I was in 1910, when I defended the genuinity of the locution dotis gratia promisisset in Dig. X X I V , 3. 31, 1 against Cujas. Cfr. In iex Interp. ad h.l. If dotis nomine dicere was correct, dotis gratia

dicere n i g h t be used, too.—By the w a y : in the dictio formula of Dig. L,

16, 125: dotis filiae meae tibi crunt . . . either nomine is missing after

dotis or dotis is corrupt instead of doti as it is correctly said in two further

examples of the same text.

1 0 Cf . Bechmann, Roem.Dotalrecht II, 1867, p. 49. Czyhlarz, Roem. Dotalre-ht, 1870, p. 92.

tion the d o w r y was considered as dos data and treated u n d e r

the rules of dotis datio. E x c e p t i o n a l l y , the f a c t t h a t the dotis

daiio h a d been p r e c e d e d by a dictio, was not w i t h o u t

influ-ence on the later t r e a t m e n t of the matter, p a r t i c u l a r l y when

the d o w r y object was evicted, as w e learn f r o m C . J u s t . V,

12, 1 p r .

1 1

and 1; c. 13 eod.

T h e connection of the dictio as a p r o m i s e and the datio

as the p a y m e n t of a d o w r y promised finds a precious

illus-tration in our p a p y r u s . T h e parties seemingly attached

im-p o r t a n c e to the f a c t that the d o w r y had been established

t h r o u g h dictio and a subsequent datio. F o r the f u t u r e

resti-tution of the d o w r y it sufficed that the d o w r y had f a c t u a l l y

been given and its receipt a c k n o w l e d g e d by the h u s b a n d , as

it really h a p p e n e d , vv. 9/10. T h e mention of the dictio could

t h e r e f o r e easily be omitted, all the m o r e so that the d o c u m e n t

stressed that the d o w r y had been delivered i m m e d i a t e l y

(praesens = on the spot) and the sum of money h a d been

p a i d in cash, in numerato. Both these expressions belong to

the R o m a n juristic l a n g u a g e and are not u n k n o w n in legal

sources, c f r . f o r the first H e u m a n n - S e c k e l ' s Handlexikon

s.v.,

1 2

f o r the latter e.g. D i g . X X V I I , 9, 5, 9 ; X X X , 96 p r . ;

X X X I X , 5, 35 pr. I n the l a n g u a g e of the G r e e k p a p y r i the

Corresponding expression f o r praesens is παραχρήμα.

13

f o r

in numerato δια χ«póę.

1 4

B o t h these expressions a p p e a r even

side by side, c f r . SB. I 5231 = M e y e r , Jur.Pap., nr. 28, v. 17

( a . l l A . D . ) , P r i n c . I I 31 ( 7 9 / 8 0 A . D . ) ; C P R 24, 5 (136

A . D . ) ; R y l . I, 161, 19 (159 A . D . ) , as in our L a t i n p a p y r u s .

11 Evicta re quae fuerit in dotem data, si pollicitatio vel promis sio fuerit interposita rel. Both here and in c. 13 eod. pollicitatio was interpolated for dictio w i t h regard to C o d . T h e o d . I l l , 13, 4, mentioned before. C f r . Berger, Bull. cit. p. 78.—As. in our papyrus the fulfilment of a dotis dictio was

here called datio.

12Praesens dos: Dig. X L I I , 8, 17, 2. Verv instructive are Dig. X L I I ,

8, 10, 12 and X L V , 1, 76, 1. T h e Latin antonym is ex die or in dit т. 1 3 See Berger, Straf klausein in den Papyrusurkunden, p. 78 f . — In late Byzantine sources praesens in the foregoing sense is translated by παραχρήμα, c f r . Dig. X X X V I , 2, 21 pr. = Bas. X L I V ; 20, 18 ( H b . I V 4 5 5 ) = Syn.Bas., 1, 127; D i g . X L V , 146 pr. = Bas. X L I I I , 1, 4 3 ( T i p . , Hb., IV, 3 0 2 ) .

14 See P . M . M e y e r , Juristische Papyri, p. 47, n.8, normally with the addition T£ OVKOV.

M I S C E L L A N E A PAPYROLOGICA

19

I t seems t h a t the a u t h o r of P . M i c h , was versed not only in

R o m a n law but also in L a t i n juristic l a n g u a g e in spite of his

l a c k i n g k n o w l e d g e of L a t i n syntax.

* * *

As it has been a l r e a d y stated b e f o r e ,

1 5

both editors of o u r

d o c u m e n t assumed t h a t it e m b o d i e d an establishment of a

d o w r y . Sanders' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to the effect that it e m b o d i e d

a m a r r i a g e c o n t r a c t

1 6

w i t h the p u r p o s e to secure R o m a n

c i t i z e n s h i p f o r D e m e t r i a and her c h i l d r e n a f t e r h o n o r a b l e

d i s c h a r g e of G e m e l l u s and to protect D e m e t r i a ' s d o w r y

r i g h t s as well, has been successfully c o n t r a d i c t e d by F i n k .

A renewed e x a m i n a t i o n of this p r o b l e m seems superfluous.

B u t even the latter a u t h o r observes that the " m e n t i o n of the

d o w r y p r o d u c e s a certain resemblance in f o r m to the

homologia-marriages of t h e G r e e k p o p u l a t i o n of E g y p t . "

1 7

H o w e v e r , as the p a p y r u s terminates a p p a r e n t l y at about the

m i d d l e of the d o c u m e n t

1 8

and its b e g i n n i n g is also missing,

1 9

f u r t h e r m o r e in view of the lack of any datation and the

decisive L a t i n e q u i v a l e n t to an i n t r o d u c t o r y ομολογεί or

όμολογοΰσι, there is no base at all f o r any resemblance to

m a r r i a g e contracts. T h e mention of the d o w r y alone is not a

sufficient c r i t é r i u m to d e t e r m i n e the n a t u r e of the d o c u m e n t ,

not only because of its a m b i g u o u s construction, b u t also

be-cause it can be f o u n d in d o c u m e n t s w h e r e no conclusion of

a m a r r i a g e is involved. O n the other h a n d , the d o c u m e n t has

a m e r e l y R o m a n c h a r a c t e r

2 0

and, w h a t is m o r e 'important,

dotis dictio was a sheer R o m a n institution w h i c h had no

c o u n t e r p a r t in G r e e k l a w .

2 1 • I 1 5 C f r . supra p. 15.

1 6 See also C. G . Starr, J r . , Roman Imperial Navy, 1941, p. 104 n. 100. " L . c . p. 114.

1 8 Sanders, p. 581.

1 9 "Probably one line lost" notes Fink, p. 112. But, maybe, another line is missing.

2 0 All persons are Roman citizens with good Roman names except, per-haps, Demetria. But she is d a u g h t e r of a [L]uci{us), c f r . Fink, p. 110 ad v. 1. Even if this reading be not ascertained, her G r e e k origin is not quite sure.

2 1 C f r . Berger, Bull. cit. p. 8 3 ; Barilleau, Nouv.Rev.Hist. de dr. fr. et étranger, V I I , 1883, 176. Beauchet, Hist, du droit privé de la Rép. Athén. I, 1897, p. 278.

M r , F i n k looked f o r the solution of the p r o b l e m f r o m

the f o l l o w i n g v i e w p o i n t :

2 2

since the p a p y r u s m u s t obviously

concern m a r i t a l relationships in some w a y or o t h e r (this is

certainly t r u e ) , since it is n e i t h e r a contract of m a r r i a g e nor

— i n his o p i n i o n — a d i v o r c e a g r e e m e n t because this

possi-bility is excluded by the certification of the p a y m e n t of the

d o w r y ,

2 3

the p a p y r u s must be—by a process of elimination

— a contract of b e t r o t h a l . But, g e n e r a l l y speaking, is this

hypothesis n o t too risky in f r o n t of the f a c t that a m o n g

the thousands and thousands of p a p y r i p u b l i s h e d so f a r ,

there is not one c o n t r a c t of b e t r o t h a l preserved, either in

G r e e k or in L a t i n ? A n d just a p a p y r u s the decisive p a r t s

of w h i c h are missing and the remnants do not a l l u d e by any

w o r d to a betrothal should be the first e x a m p l e of this t y p e ?

T h e a u t h o r tries to save his solution by the a r b i t r a r y

inser-tion of the w o r d s sponsa est or pacta est into the lacuna at

the b e g i n n i n g of v. 1, b u t this s u p p o r t can h a r d l y be

esti-m a t e d as sufficient, since none of these expressions is based

on e a r l i e r e x a m p l e s n o r are they k n o w n in legal sources in

s i m i l a r connection. I n v i e w of this d o u b t f u l reconstruction

and the f o r m e r statements one must be a priori sceptical

against F i n k ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the d o c u m e n t .

T h e e x p l a n a t i o n of the f a c t that t h e r e are no betrothal

agreements a m o n g the p a p y r i is very s i m p l e : a c c o r d i n g to

R o m a n l a w b e t r o t h a l was by no means b i n d i n g , a l t h o u g h it

was not d e p r i v e d of some legal consequences to w h i c h F i n k

attached to m u c h i m p o r t a n c e and w h i c h , h o w e v e r , w e r e of

m i n o r effect because betrothal never obliged the parties to

m a r r i a g e . A n d this is the f u n d a m e n t a l point. A classical

text, P a u l . D i g . X X I I I , 1, 7, states expressly that it is

i r r e l e v a n t w h e t h e r the b e t r o t h a l a g r e e m e n t was w r i t t e n

or not. T h i s statement leaves not m u c h h o p e f o r a betrothal

d o c u m e n t in the p a p y r i , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n R o m a n parties

are involved. F i n k , on the contrary, sees in P a u l u s ' text "a

proof that sponsalia w e r e in f a c t reduced in w r i t i n g . "

2 4

2 21 - е . p. 116.

2 3 T h i s is wrong, cfr. supra p. 18. Moreover, the clause refers to the

previously contracted marriage, cfr. supra p. 15 and infra p. 2 3 f .

M I S C E L L A N E A PAPYROLOGICA

21

M a y b e , t h a t sponsalia sometimes w e r e e m b o d i e d in a w r i t t e n

document, a l t h o u g h the R o m a n s d i d not w r i t e w h e n it was

not necessary. I t is, however, not admissible to establish the

first e x a m p l e of t h a t legally useless deed just in a m u t i l a t e d

d o c u m e n t w h e r e not a syllable speaks of b e t r o t h a l .

T h e s e general objections against the b e t r o t h a l hypothesis

m a y seem nevertheless insufficient since its a u t h o r tried to

j u s t i f y it by a series of a r g u m e n t s d r a w n f r o m the p a r t i c u l a r

f a c t u a l circumstances of the case. W e must t h e r e f o r e take

them into consideration a l t h o u g h the basic d i v e r g e n c e as to_

the question w h e t h e r the p a p y r u s embodies an establishment

of a d o w r y or not, excludes any conciliation between the d i f

-f e r e n t opinions. B u t even i-f w e a s s u m e d — p o s i t o sed non

concesso—that the d o c u m e n t served f o r the constitution of a

dowry, the b e t r o t h a l theory would a p p e a r d e p r i v e d of any

f o u n d a t i o n . I n F i n k ' s opinion the d o c u m e n t should be, since

the previous m a r r i a g e D e m e t r i a - G e m e l l u s was broken off

in consequence of the h u s b a n d ' s later enlistment, " b o t h an

a g r e e m e n t to resume the m a r r i a g e w h e n circumstances

per-mitted and a substitute f o r it w h i c h w o u l d to some extent

protect their interests in each other d u r i n g the i n t e r i m . "

2 5

F i r s t of all, however, such an a g r e e m e n t w o u l d have been

w i t h o u t any v a l u e because neither of the parties was b o u n d

to " r e s u m e the m a r r i a g e , " and especially G e m e l l u s was not

prevented f r o m m a r r y i n g another w o m a n a f t e r his release

f r o m the m i l i t a r y service.

2 6

T h e a d v a n t a g e w h i c h F i n k sees

in the f a c t that the parties w e r e p e r m i t t e d "to call the d o w r y

by its n a m e instead of a t t e m p t i n g to cloak it as a loan or

d e p o s i t , "

2 7

was at least u n i m p o r t a n t and p r o b l e m a t i c . W h a t

an a d v a n t a g e is it t h a t a d o w r y is called a d o w r y if actually

m a r r i a g e was p r o h i b i t e d and betrothal not b i n d i n g at all?

Such an " a d v a n c e p a y m e n t in anticipation of a m a r r i a g e

w h i c h w o u l d not take place until m a r r i a g e was legally

possi-b l e " was s i m p l y i m p r u d e n t ' o n the p a r t of D e m e t r i a f o r , if

G e m e l l u s at the end of his service m a d e u p his m i n d ,

Deme-2 3 P. 122.

2 6 T h u s Fink, p. 123.

27 Ch. Taubenschlag, Law of the Greco-Roman Egypt, 1944, p. 2 6

tria had no means to e n f o r c e the m a r r i a g e . I t is h a r d l y to

realize w h a t sense should have had the establishment and

even the p a y m e n t of the d o w r y w h e n G e m e l l u s was in active

service as a sailor. H e needed n e i t h e r the l a r g e sum of

m o n e y ,

2 8

n o r c l o t h i n g ,

2 9

and on D e m e t r i a ' s p a r t it w o u l d

have been simply s t u p i d to give h i m money in o r d e r to bind

h i m only m o r a l l y to a f u t u r e m a t r i m o n y . D e m e t r i a ' s

situation was d i f f e r e n t f r o m that of a n o r m a l bride. Since G e m e l

-lus served in the n a v y — h e

W 3 S miles classis Augustae Alex-andrinae on the w a r s h i p ( l i h u r n a )

D r a c o n

3 0

— s h e could not

m a r r y h i m as l o n g as he was in duty. B e t r o t h a l and

pay-m e n t of a d o w r y u n a r these conditions d i d not pay-m a k e any

sense, since it was not known w h e n G e m e l l u s w o u l d be

dis-c h a r g e d .

3 1

N o r m a l l y the service lasted 26 y e a r s ;

3 2

the

perspective was not very b e a u t i f u l f o r D e m e t r i a w h o

actu-ally was 39 years old. T h a t the d o w r y was i m m e d i a t e l y

recoverable by D e m e t r i a " a t any time until the actual m a r

-riage took p l a c e , "

3 3

m i g h t have been a poor consolation to

her. She w o u l d have done better not g i v i n g G e m e l l u s a

d o w r y at all. A simple p r o m i s e w o u l d have h a d the same

m o r a l effect, if any. D e m e t r i a , instead, d e l i v e r e d the d o w r y

i m m e d i a t e l y . T h e same objection must be m a d e against

F i n k ' s i n f e r e n c e t h a t the w i f e ' s d o w r y was protected, if

G e m e l l u s died in service. I think, it Would h a v e been a

better protection not to give h i m the d o w r y at all d u r i n g his

service. A c c o r d i n g to F i n k , f u r t h e r m o r e , the legitimacy

of the two sons b o r n b e f o r e their f a t h e r ' s enlistment, was

d o c u m e n t e d by the b e t r o t h a l a g r e e m e n t . I do not realize

w h y such a strange f o r m of legitimacy of the c h i l d r e n , born

in a iustum matrimonium b e f o r e their f a t h e r ' s enlistment,

t h r o u g h a new b e t r o t h a l w i t h the f a t h e r , d u r i n g his m i l i t a r y

2 8 The· sum is not readable ; but' there is place for some hundreds of

drachmae, see Fink, p. 110 ad v. 9.

2 9 Normally the dowry contained women's dresses, ιμάτια yviaïKÛa. 3 0 For the legal position of '.lie sailors cfr Ulpian Dig. X X X V I I I , 13, 1, 1 : in classibus omnes remiges et nautae milites sunt.

3 1 W e do not examine here the question whether a formal conclusion of

a new marriage with her ex-husband was necessary or not,

3 2 Fink, p. 123. 3 3 Fink, ibid

MISCELLANEX PAPYROLOGICA

23

service,

3 4

should have been necessary. T h e professiones

li-berorum natorum about w h i c h w e are pretty well i n f o r m e d ,

3

' '

w e r e sufficient f o r this p u r p o s e .

T h e f o r e g o i n g r e m a r k s have shown t h a t t h e r e cannot be

question of any protection of the parties' reciprocal interests

t h r o u g h a betrothal. T h e y have revealed, m o r e o v e r , the

com-plete f a i l u r e of any a t t e m p t to explain o u r d o c u m e n t as an

a g r e e m e n t connected w i t h the constitution of a d o w r y , f o r

neither m a r r i a g e nor b e t r o t h a l of the ex-spouses come into

consideration. Consequently it must be supposed t h a t the

d o w r y mentioned in vv. 6-9 had been constituted b e f o r e the

transaction e m b o d i e d in P . M i c h , was c o n c l u d e d since in no

event the constitution of a d o w r y in o u r d o c u m e n t had any

reasonable g r o u n d .

T h i s result confirms p e r f e c t l y the conclusion w e have

d r a w n b e f o r e f r o m the text itself.

W h a t was then the real p u r p o s e of P . M i c h . ? I t is

obvi-ous that in v i e w of its d e f e c t i v e conditions every

supposi-tion must remain h y p o t h e t i c a l . S h o u l d we, h o w e v e r not

propose a t h i r d solution, if two h a d proven a f a i l u r e ? I t is

beyond any d o u b t t h a t the key f o r the solution lies in the

mention of the d o w r y and as it is to be r e f e r r e d not to an

actual, b u t a p r e v i o u s constitution of a d o w r y , o u r

docu-ment m a y be b r o u g h t p e r h a p s in connection w i t h the

resti-tution of the same. T h e f o l l o w i n g alternatives come into

q u e s t i o n : either the restitution of the d o w r y w i t h i n a

con-tract of d i v o r c e or i n d e p e n d e n t l y f r o m a d i v o r c e

agree-ment. I n the latter case the d o c u m e n t w o u l d be simply a i

a c k n o w l e d g m e n t of thç receipt of the d o w r y in the f o r m

of the w e l l - k n o w n apocha. F o r both types w e have several

models in the p a p y r i and there is no need to c h a r a c t e r i z e the

3 4 Cfr. P . M . M e v e r , Jur. Pap. p. 9 ; Fritz Schulz, Roman Registers of births, Journal of Roman Studies, vol. X X X I I , 1942, p. 78tf., X X X I I I ,

1943, p. 55ff.

35 T h e legitimacy of such children is out of question. Correctly Fink, p.

122, against J. Kromayer, Heerwesen and Kriegfuehrung der Roemer, 1928, p. 532. Fink, however, argues that doubts might later have been raised ( w h y ? ) whether the boys were born before their father's enlistment.

debris of our papyrus as a type of a contract so f a r quite

unknown. H e r e some examples of similar documents, all

of them in Greek and of the Roman p e r i o d : on the one

hand, divorce agreements:3 6 B G U . I l l , 975 (45 A . D . ) ,

Oxy. V I , 906 (2nd-3rd cent.), on the other hand dowry

receipts: B G U . IV, 1104 ( A u g . ) ,3 7 Oxv. I I , 266 = Mitteis,

Chr. 292, a. 96 A . D . ; P. Princ. I l , 31 (a. 79/80 A . D . ) ;

P. Lond I I , 178 (p. 207, a. 145). In these documents the

restitution of the dowry is acknowledged without any

divorce agreement.

T h e r e is no reason why a divorce agreement in P. Mich,

ciť. should be a limine rejected.3 8 Some features remind

directly of similar agreements: the wife appears with her

guardian and acts tutore auctore,

30

her age and personal

marks are indicated, she enumerates the objects of the

dowry she had given to" her husband, and of which she

might have acknowledged the receipt in the lost part of

the papyrus, since such a clause is one of the principal ones

in a divorce contract.

4 0

Particular attention should be paid to the seven witnesses,

presumably Roman citizens, as f a r as their f r a g m e n t a r y

Greek signatures on the verso of the papyrus permit to

sup-pose.

4 1 These seven witnesses recall us of the famous Paulus

text, Dig. X X I V , 2, 9 : nullum divortium ratum est nisi

septem civibus Romanis adhibitis. T h e genuinity of the

first four words, however, is not certain. W e refer to the

3 6 For a complete list of divorce agreements see O . Montevecchi, Aegyptus

X V I , 1936, p. 20.

3 7 Cfr. Berger, Strafklauseln, p. 195.

3 8 As Fink, p. 116 did, cfr. supra p. 20. Of course, who sees in the

document the factual establishment of a dowry, cannot accept this solution. Fink's further objection that "the participation of the tutor shows that Demetria was not under legal authority of either the father or a husband" and therefore the possibility of a divorce agreement is excluded, is unim-portant.

3 9 This is the first example of this Latin locution in the papyri, cfr.

Taubenschlag, I.e., p. 125 n.45. For general information on the role of the guardians in the papyri see Taubenschlag, Archives d'histoire du droit oriental II, 1938, p. 293ff.

4 0 Cfr. Berger, Straf klauseln, p. 225.

4 1 Sanders, p. 581. See, moreover, Schuman, Trans. Amer. Philol. Assoc.

MISCELLANEA PAPYROLOGICA _{2 5}

inventive and adroit reconstruction of the classical wording

of the text by Levy4 2 which—although hypothetic as all

substantial reconstructions are — imposes some reserve

towards the authenticity of the text. Moreover, the seven

witnesses should not be considered as a decisive element

for the divorce hypothesis, in view of the fact that this

number of witnesses appear in various documents of the

Roman period.

4 3

M o r e important is, of course, the question, w h a t

advan-tage arose from a divorce document to Demetria. She

wished, maybe, to m a r r y another man and get rid definitely

of her husband, the sailor, from whom she has been

sepa-rated for years because of his service and should remain so

for a long time.

4 4 In this case a written statement that she

is divorced and able to conclude a new marriage, was

cer-tainly of some use to her. M a n y divorce contracts are

pro-vided with a similar clause.4 5 T h e care for the two boys

may have been also a reason to enter a new matrimony. A

divorce, it is true, did not require a written deed,

4 6 but in

her particular situation as a wife of a sailor who enlisted

after several years of marriage and as a mother of two

children, a document stating that nothing was in her way

against a second marriage, was doubtlessly not without

im-portance. I t is known that the enlistment of a married man

had some influence on the marriage. Some scholaes, with

42 Hergang der roemischen Ehescheidung, 1925, p. 25ff., 46, followed

by Pringsheim, Gnomon, III, 1927, p. 518, but contradicted by Ratti, Bull.Ist.Dir.Rom. X X X V , 1927, 206ff. and Brasiello, Archivioßiuridico, X C V I I I , 1927, 2 4 i f . See also Bonfante, Corso, I, 1925, p. 246 and 512, Kaser, Art. Testimonium, Pauly^issowa's RE., V A , 1022, 6 7 ; 1024, 23. Against Levy's reconstruction decidedly, and with not negligible arguments, P.E. Corbett, The Roman law of marriage (Oxford 1930), p. 231ff. and M . Lauria, Matrimonio e dote (Rome, 1936), p. 5 9 f . — A t any rate, if our papyrus was really a divorce agreement, it would be the first with 7 witnesses; cfr. Levy, p. 131.

4 3 Kaser I.e., p. 103If.

44 Cfr. supra n.32. See also Starr, I.e. p. 105: "while engaged in active

service the sailor could not hope to have his wife present or near by."

4 5 Cfr., for instance, B G U . IV, 1102, 1103; Lips 2 7 ; PSI V I I I 921, 2 9 ;

Grenf. II, 76 where expressly the w i f e is given the right to marry ω ία* βονληται. In B G U . IV, 1104 (cfr. Berger, Strafklauseln, p. 1 9 5 ) , a receipt for the restitution of a dowry—the same right is even granted to a widow.

M i t t e i s at the h e a d ,

4 7

speak of a f u l l a n n u l m e n t of the

m a r r i a g e previously c o n c l u d e d

4 8

— o t h e r s , as P. M . M e y e r ,

4 9

only of a suspension and an isolated opinion denies any

in-fluence of the subsequent militia on an existent m a r r i a g e .

5 0

T h e question is controversial, at any rate no explicit n o r m

in R o m a n sources gives a definite answer. O n e text by Gaius,

D i g . X X I V , 1, 61, b e l o n g i n g to the same epoch as o u r

p a p y r u s ,

5 1

leads r a t h e r to the conclusion that the m a r r i a g e

d i d not become a u t o m a t i c a l l y null in consequence of the

enlistment of the h u s b a n d .

5

' I t says only that in such a case

matrimonium satis commode retineri non potest, similarly

as w h e n the h u s b a n d is very old or sick. A n attached

sen-tence of a later R o m a n jurist, H e r m o g e n i a n u s ( t h i r d - f o u r t h

c e n t . ) , f r . 62 eod., advises that the couple d i v o r c e in m u t u a l

a g r e e m e n t (bona gratia).

53

U n d e r these circumstances it is

4 6 Dig. X X I I I , 1, 4 : sufficit nudus consensus.

47 Grundzuege, p. 2 8 2 ; cfr. hovVever, n.3 ibid.—In 1908 ( R o e m .

Privat-recht, p. 191 n.19) Mitteis wrote: die Soldat-enehe wird in eine Nichtehe verwandelt; E.Rabel, Grundzuege des roem.Privatrechts, p. 417, 422® ; E.Levy, Verschollenheit und Ehe, Gedaechtnisschrift fuer Seckel, 1927, p.

148я; Fink, p. 117, 121; Kunkel, PaulyWissowa's RE. X I V 2268, 15.

Kromayer, l.supra n.35 cit.

4 8 Mitteis' principal argument is B G U I, 140, the well-known eputula

Hadriani (cfr. infra I I ) , which, in my opinion, hanily can be considered as absolutely decisive.

49 Jur. Pap., p. 53 ; Nietzold, Ehe in Aegypten, 1903, p. 85. Ch. Lécrivain,

in Darcmberg-Saglio's Dictionnaire, II, Ρ- 1659.

5 0 Tassistro, Il rnatrimonio dei soldáti romani, Studi e Documenti di

storia e diritto, X X I I , 1901, p. 31.—For the whole question see P. E. Corbett, The Roman Law of marriage, 1930, p. 41-ff.

5 1 According to Sanders, p. 584, P. Mich, is not later than second

cen-tury A . D . '

5 2 T h e case cannot be compared with that of captivitas of the husband

where the marriage becomes null because of the loss of the status libertatis with the husband. For this question see Mitteis, Roem. Privatr. I.e.— There remains still another problem to be studied : whether there was not perhaps a different treatment of the classiarii in this regard? Cfr. P. M . Meyer, Sav.-Ztschr. X V I I I , 1897, p. 71f. Starr, I.e., p. 92,—See the Ulpian-text quoted supra n.30.

5 3 Never mind whether this locution is always interpolated, as Solazzi,

Divortium bona gratia, Rend.Ist.Lomb., Cl.di lettere LXXI 1938, p. 51 Iff., courageously assumes. More cautious is Bonfante, Corso di dir.гот. I, 263. A t any rate the statement in Dig. X X I V , 1, 62 pr.: et ideo bona gratia matrimonium dissolvitur does not seem of Justinian origin, in spite of its wording arousing suspicion.

MISCELLANEA PAPYROLOGICA

₂₇

not u n l i k e l y ' t h a t if D e m e t r i a wished to be free, a f o r m a l

d i v o r c e by m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t , presented to her some

advan-tage and f o r this p u r p o s e a written d o c u m e n t was the r i g h t

way, all the m o r e t h a t t h e r e w e r e financial m a t t e r s to be

a r r a n g e d , first of all the restitution of the d o w r y . A f t e r all,

D e m e t r i a , w h e t h e r d i v o r c e d or not, h a d a g r e a t interest to

get back the d o w r y w h i c h in the h a n d s of h e r h u s b a n d d u r

-ing his service m a d e no sense and by no means served to

alleviate the onera matrimonii. I t was t h e r e f o r e quite

natu-ral that she w a n t e d to h a v e h e r d o w r y r e t u r n e d instead of

l e a v i n g it at G e m e l l u s ' disposal since their m a r r i a g e ,

an-nulled or suspended, f a c t u a l l y was no m a r r i a g e m o r e .

T h u s w e a r r i v e to the solution of the p r o b l e m of the n a t u r e

of the d o c u m e n t : D e m e t r i a a c k n o w l e d g e d in it—be it w i t h i n

or w i t h o u t a divorce a g r e e m e n t — t h e receipt of the d o w r y

f r o m Gemellus. H e n c e the intervention of h e r g u a r d i a n , the

identification of all persons involved, in the same m a n n e r as

in G r e e k documents, the precise indication of the d o w r y

to-g e t h e r w i t h the f o r m as it was constituted, hence, finally, the

witnesses whose assistance is certainly not an obstacle against

this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

T h e missing p a r t of the p a p y r u s should t h e r e f o r e have

c o n t a i n e d : first of all D e m e t r i a ' s , d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t she

re-ceived back her d o w r y and t h a t she released h e r ex-husband

f r o m his obligations connected with the d o w r y . Since a p a r t

of it was a dos aestimata, there m i g h t have been a p h r a s e

r e f e r r i n g to her r i g h t of choice, if, of course, she h a d

re-served it f o r herself w h e n establishing the d o w r y , ut aut

aestimatio aut res praestetur,

c f r . D i g . X X I I I , 3, 10, 6 ;

X X I I I , 5, 11 ; F r . V a t . 114. Such clause is f r e q u e n t in p a p y r i

of the first three centuries A . D . and some of the f o l l o w i n g

ex-a m p l e s concern estimex-ated clothes :

έκλογής ούσης η τα

ίμ,άπα η

την σνντίμησιν

κτλ·, c f r . B G U . I I I , 7 1 7 , 2 1 ; C P R . 2 2 , 2 3 ; 2 7 , 1 8 ;

F a y . 90, 15; Oxy. I I I , 496, IS; 497, 19; I V , 729, 41.

5 4

Be-sides this the d o w r y - a p o c h e had to contain the

μή-έπελεύ-cr«r0at-obligation of D e m e t r i a , that is to say, the obligation

5 4 In C P R 23, 4 ( = Mitteis, Chr. 2 9 4 ) the receipt of syntimesis is

not to make any claim nor proceed against Gemellus in

con-nection with the dowry. A penalty clause connected with the

renunciation of further claims was certainly attached.

55

The

declaration of the woman with regard to the restoration of

the dowry and the respective renunciation required the

approval by her guardian who participated in the whole

transactior by giving his auctoritas.

Together with the necessary signatures of all persons

participating in the act, and perhaps of the notary who

in-tervened in the confection of the deed,

5 6

there was material

enough for the missing second half of the papyrus. If the

document was also a divorce agreement, an adequate

dec-laration by Gemellus as well as his signature are to be

sup-posed. Even, if the document was not a full divorce

agree-ment, a brief reference to the solution of the matrimony

might have been inserted, similar perhaps to that of P. Oxy.

I I , 2 6 6 V. 1 S : ίνβκα του άναζυγην τον γάμου γενέσθαι. A p r e c e

-dent divorce is also to be considered, because the phrase cui

nupta erat

sounds exactly as the Greek locution

τ ω γ ί ν ο μ έ ν φ

αυτής àvBp'S

7 which occurs everywhere when the restitution

of the dowry by the husband is acknowledged by the

ex-w i f e .

5 8

Maybe, these words allude to the solution of the

marriage as a consequence of the husband's enlistment. At

any rate, the essential element of the document, the

restitu-tion of the dowry, is, in my opinion, beyond any doubt.

I I

Άναλαμβάνίσθαι I N T H E E P I S T U L A H A D R I A N I ,

B G U .

I , 1 4 0

Αναλαμβάνει» and its passive voice as well have very

dif-ferent meanings. For the language of the Greek papyri alone

F. Preisigke has noted in his Woerterbuch der griechischen

6 6 Cfr. Berger, Strafklauseln, p. 188ff.

5 8 Thi« is uncertain, of course, since the beginning of the papyrus is not prt.;ti.

6' Cfr. supra, before n.5.

6 8 P.Princ. II, 31 ( A . D . 7 9 / 8 0 ) , a dowry-apoche', unfortunately al?o

partially preserved, shows the same structure as our papyrus: ô/ioAoyeî (-.j Stlea) . μ «τα κυρίου . . . τω -γινημίνω αντης άνδρί . . . άπίχαν κτλ.·

M I S C E L L A N E A P A P Y R O L O G I C A 29

Papyrusurkunden, I, pp. 93-95, twenty-one groups of

Ger-man versions. And yet, just the άναλημφθίνης in the famous

Epistula H a d r i a n i , B G U . I , 140 v. 24 (119 A . D . ) ,

1 is

miss-ing in the long list of papyri cited by the author, and

like-wise among the G e r m a n equivalents there is not to be found

any expression corresponding to the term as applied in the

imperial letter. T h i s omission in the dictionary which is

highly appreciated for its exactitude, might have been

caused by the fact that s.v. άναφίω, nr. 2, Preisigke had

identified the medial voice άναφβΐσθαι with the passive voice

άναλαμβάν^σθαι. H e quoted there beside the passage of

v. 11 of our papyrus

ους oi yoveîç αύτων ανάλαντο

which he

a w k w a r d l y t r a n s l a t e d : "die von ihren Eltern als ihre leib-lichen Kinder anerkannten Kinder," a l s o v . 2 3 o f t h e e p i s t u l a

where no άναφεΐσθαι appears. T h i s latter passage is built up

ОП άναλαμβάνεσθαι : oi τω της σ τ ρ α τ ί i a ç χρόνω άναλημφθ ivres.

By exploiting v. 23 wrongly under άναιρίω the author

over-looked that the right place for this passage was the article

αναλαμβάνω, even if a new, twenty-second group of

significa-tions had to be added.

I n a r e c e n t d i s s e r t a t i o n o n t h e Martyrs of Caesarea,2

Professor Saul Lieberman—following an earlier statement

by Professor H e n r i G r é g o i r e

3

concerning the meaning of

άνίλημφθη = " d i e d " on three Montanistic grave inscriptions

—has shown that the same expression was used frequently

in Jewish Greek texts, and especially in the Apocalyptic

literature,4 in the same sense of "to die." T h e following

pages will prove that in H a d r i a n ' s epistula the same verb

signified "to be born," "to be procreated." H a r d l y may be

found a greater contrast between two meanings of the same

word.

1 Republished in all collections of Roman pre Justinian legal sources

(Bruns-Mommsen-Gradenwitz; Girard, Textes; Riccobono, Fontes) and in Mitteis' Chrest., nr. 373.

2 Annuaire de l Institut de Philol. et d'Hist. Orientales et Slaves, Tome

V I I , 1944, p. 437£f. ( N e w Y o r k ) .

3 Byzantion II, 1925, p. 331 and X , 1935, p. 248 ff.

4 Cfr. furthermore the text quoted by Lieberman, Roman Legal

Institu-tions in Early Rabbinics and in the Acta Martyrům, repr. from The Jewish Quarterly Review, v . X X X V , 1944, p. 50.

I n his l e t t e r to t h e p r e f e c t of E g y p t , C . R a m m i u s M a r

-tialis, w h i c h a c c o r d i n g to its o w n s t a t e m e n t is a t r a n s l a t i o n

f r o m . L a t i n , v. 1/2, H a d r i a n d e a l s w i t h t h e r i g h t of

succes-sion on i n t e s t a c y a c c o r d e d to s o l d i e r s ' c h i l d r e n , άναλημφθύντ«;

τω της arpareías χρύνω.5 Άναλημφθίντν; is h e r e t h e e x a c t v e r

-sion of t h e L a t i n suscepti. T h e c o m p o s i t i o n a n d m e a n i n g of

b o t h v e r b s a r e p e r f e c t l y i d e n t i c a l : sus-cipere, άνα-λαμβάκιν.

Suscipere is a f r e q u e n t t e c h n i c a l t e r m in l e g a l sources, used

in t h e sense of procreare, concipere, nasci (suscipi-nasci),

c f r .

Vос. IUT. Rom.

V , 894. I n t h e s a m e m e a n i n g

άναλαμβά-νζσθα,ι is used in B G U . I , 140.

S p e a k i n g of t h i s i m p e r i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n o n e s h o u l d not,

t h e r e f o r e , i d e n t i f y

άναλαμβάνειν

w i t h t h e a n c i e n t c u s t o m of

t h e R o m a n s tollere liberum as Η . K r e l l e r d i d .

6

I n t h e best

p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e s u b j e c t , S. P e r o z z i

7

— r e f e r r e d to b y K r e l

-l e r — d e s c r i b e d t h a t c u s t o m as f o -l -l o w s : w h e n a m a r r i e d

w o m a n b o r e a son, t h e c h i l d w a s p u t on t h e e a r t h b e f o r e t h e

c h i e f of t h e f a m i l y w h o t h e n took it u p t h u s d e m o n s t r a t i n g

h i s w i l l to k e e p t h e n e w - b o r n c h i l d as a son of t h e f a m i l y .

T h i s u s a g e w a s p r a c t i c e d in v e r y r e m o t e d t i m e s a n d h a d a

r a t h e r s y m b o l i c t h a n l e g a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . T h e t e c h n i c a l t e r m

f o r this act w a s tollere a n d , p e r h a p s , suscipere c o u l d also

b e u s e d in t h e s a m e sense

8

since t h e p r i m a r y s i g n i f i c a n c e of

b o t h v e r b s w a s i d e n t i c a l . B u t t h i s does n o t m e a n t h a t e v e r y

-w h e r e t h e t e r m s suscipere filium o r liheri suscepti o c c u r ,

t h e y a r e to b e u n d e r s t o o d in t h e sense of t h e a n c i e n t c u s t o m

a n d t h a t t h e g e s t u r e d e s c r i b e d b e f o r e h a d b e e n r e a l l y

a c c o m p l i s h e d . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e is n o t r a c e of it in

l e g a l s o u r c e s at a l l ,

9

b e c a u s e b y t h e t i m e s of t h e R o m a n

E m p i r e it w a s l o n g since o u t of u s e .

1 0

N o f o r m a l j u r i d i c a l

5 T h i s is the literal Greek version of tempore militiae, cfr. D i g . X X I X ,

1, 21 ; X X I X , 7, 8, 4 ; X X X V , 2, 9 6 ; X L I X , 17, 4, 2. T h e plural

tempori-bus militiae, used by Gradenwitz in Bruns. Fontes7, nr. 196 is nut in accord

with the juridical language, cfr. VocJur.Rom. V, 9 8 2 , 20ff. ; 992, 33ff. 6 Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen, 1919, p. 156 n.65, quoted by Tauben-schlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 1944, p. 80 n.16.

7 Studi Simoncelli, 1917, p. 215ff.

8 Perozzi, I.e. 2 1 5 . 8 Perozzi I.e.

MISCELLANEA PAPYROLOGICA _{3 1}

act of r e c o g n i z e m e n t o r a d m i s s i o n to t h e f a m i l y w a s

re-q u i r e d . T h e a n c i e n t tollere liberum h a d n o l e g a l i m p o r t a n c e ,

in p a r t i c u l a r it h a d n o s i g n i f i c a n c e of r e c o g n i z e m e n t of p a

-t e r n i -t y or l e g i -t i m a c y of -t h e c h i l d . E q u a l l y -t h e o m i s s i o n of

t h a t s y m b o l i c g e s t u r e w a s w i t h o u t any l e g a l e f f e c t s .

1 1

T h e r e

-f o r e it is w r o n g to r e -f e r t h e suscipere in l e g a l texts o-f t h e

s e c o n d c e n t u r y A . D . , as t h e e p i s t u l a H a d r i a n i , to t h e l o n g

since f o r g o t t e n tollere liberum,

12

If w e r e a d t h e texts listed

in Foe. Jur. Rom., s.v. suscipere vol. V , 894, 4 0 f f . w e h a r d l y

find a n y text w h e r e suscipere w o u l d be c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e

a n c i e n t usage. W i t h r e g a r d to o u r p a p y r u s it is to say t h a t

t h e m e n t i o n of t h e w h o l e p e r i o d of t h e f a t h e r ' s m i l i t a r y

s e r v i c e ( t e m p o r e militiae) e x c l u d e s a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e

act of t a k i n g u p a n e w b o r n c h i l d . " L i f t i n g u p a c h i l d d u r

i n g t h e t i m e of m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e " s o u n d s a w k w a r d l y . M o r e

-o v e r , t h e p r e s e n c e -of a s -o l d i e r at t h e b i r t h -of his c h i l d w a s

v e r y u n l i k e l y , since c o m m o n l i v i n g w i t h the w i f e d u r i n g h i s

militia w a s s i m p l y o u t of q u e s t i o n ,

1 3

n o t to s p e a k of t h e

l e g a l r e p e r c u s s i o n of a m a r r i e d m a n ' s e n l i s t m e n t on t h e

e x i s t e n c e of t h e m a t r i m o n y c o n c l u d e d b e f o r e .

1 4

K r e l l e r q u o t e s S t e p h a n u s ' Thesaurus as r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of αναλαμβάνει w i t h tollere.

15

I c o u l d n o t find

t h i s e q u a t i o n , b u t it m a y b e c o r r e c t . W h a t I f o u n d in

1 1 P. Bonfante, Corso di dir.rom. I ( 1 9 2 5 ) , p. 13.—Therefore, the

ex-planation given in Voc. Jur. Rom. V, 1063 s.v. tollere nr. II: e terra capere

vet in bracchia ab obstetrice accipere, suscipere is in its first part not

pertinent to the texts cited which do not allude to the ancient custom. T h e best proof is D i g . X X X V I I I , 8, 3 where tollere, procreare and suscipere are applied as synonyms; in D i g . X X X V I I , 4, 6, 4 tollere — procreare; in D i g . X X I I I , 4, 2 7 ; X X I X , 2, 9 2 ; X X X I , 77, 2 4 ; X X X I V , 4, 2 4 pr. X X X V I I , 14, 6 pr. tollere is referred to the mother which is the best argument against any connection w i t h the ancient gesture.

1 2 It is interesting that Kreller, himself, translates άναΚημθΙντίί

cor-rectly with "born," cfr. the text before n.165 I.e. But t w o pages later, p. 159 n. 69, he speaks once more of ίναΧαμβάνιιν as an action accomplished particularly by the legitime father. Tollere liberum was, however, exe-cuted by the pater familias, hence under circumstances by the grandfather or even the great-grandfather.

1 3 T h i s against Kreller's inference, p. 157, that Hadrian presupposes a

permanent living together of the parents.

1 4 Cfr. supra p. 26. 1 5 H e cites: I 2, Sp. 433.

S t e p h a n u s

1 6

is αναλαμβάνει τον παΐδα = penes se asciscere

puerum, et id ferme, quod agnoscere filium diciiur, a n d

l a t e r

1 7

άναλημφθείς υιός = in domum receptus filius. B u t all

this has n o t h i n g to d o w i t h B G U . 140, w h e r e άναλημφθείς

m e a n s s i m p l y natus, procreatus. T h e E m p e r o r H a d r i a n d i d

n o t t h i n k even in the f a r t h e s t w a y of an agnoscere or recipere

in domum filium.

T h e f o r e g o i n g r e m a r k s lead to some j u r i d i c a l c o n s i d e r a

-tions w h i c h a s t u d e n t of R o m a n l a w h a r d l y can neglect.

H a d r i a n ' s r e s c r i p t w a s a l e g i s l a t i v e m e a s u r e in f a v o r of

(

c h i l d r e n b o r n d u r i n g t h e i r f a t h e r ' s m i l i t a r y service. I t is

e v i d e n t t h a t a c h i l d c o n c e i v e d b e f o r e the f a t h e r ' s e n l i s t m e n t

a n d b o r n d u r i n g his militia w a s t r e a t e d even b e f o r e H a d r i

an's r e f o r m o t h e r w i s e t h a n a c h i l d conceived and b o r n d u r

-i n g t h a t t-ime. T h e f o r m e r c h -i l d c o u l d n o t be c o n s -i d e r e d as

p r o c r e a t e d by his p a r e n t s " a g a i n s t the m i l i t a r y d i s c i p l i n e , "

as H a d r i a n says: τουναντίον της στρατιωτικής

δ ι δ α χ ή ? .

T h e

r i g h t of succession on intestacy to the f a t h e r ' s p r o p e r t y c o u l d

n o t be d e n i e d to those c h i l d r e n . H o w , h o w e v e r , a b o u t t h e

h e r e d i t a r y r i g h t s of a c h i l d conceived d u r i n g the f a t h e r ' s

militia a n d b o r n a f t e r this time, w h e n , f o r instance, t h e

l a t t e r d i e d as a s o l d i e r ? T h e r e is no d o u b t t h a t the p r i v i l e g e

a c c o r d e d by H a d r i a n ' s r e f o r m r e f e r r e d to such c h i l d r e n

since they w e r e n o t b o r n t e m p o r e militiae. B u t b e f o r e

H a d r i a n the p r o b l e m of a d m i t t i n g t h e m to the f a t h e r ' s

suc-cession m i g h t h a v e been a h a r d one, since t h e y w e r e not

b o r n in a iustum matrimonium.

16

* * *

A f e w w o r d s only a b o u t άναψεΐσθαι in v. 11 of o u r p a p y r u s

w h e r e it a p p e a r s in the s a m e sense as the άναλημφθεντες ten

1 6 London edition of 1882, Vol. IV, 5558 D .

17 P. 5560 Β : άνα\αμμίνο4 tli то ycVos, qui est a pâtre agnitus et domum deductus.

1 8 A . Segré, Il dir. dei milites peregrini nell' esercito romano, Rend, delta Pont. Accad. Romana di Archeologia, v. X V I I , 1940-1941, p. 175, assumes

that the epistula Hadriani refers to soldiers which were filii familias and that it recognizes the peculium castrense as property of the f.fam. as if he had been emancipated through his entrance into the army. There is- no indication whatsoever in the text for any of these conclusions.

lines later. Aίρείν ( m i d . αίρείσθαι) and λαμβάνειν a r e a l m o s t

s y n o n y m o u s , and so a r e t h e i r c o m p o s i t a w i t h t h e s a m e p r e

-fix ανά. B o t h άναιρεΐσθαι a n d αναλαμβάνε (•= tollere,

susci-pere)19

are used in active sense a l t h o u g h g r a m m a t i c a l l y t h e y

d i f f e r in the voice. W e m e e t in the p a p y r i άναιρεΐσθαι f r e

q u e n t l y in t h e sense of " t a k i n g u p " an exposed c h i l d , a b a n

-d o n e -d by his p a r e n t s (e.g. άπο κοπρίας)

20

in o r d e r to t r e a t

h i m as one's o w n . I n this c o n n e c t i o n t h e w o r d r e m i n d s of t h e

a n c i e n t tollere liberum,

21

b u t even t h e r e it w a s n o t t h e s a m e

act since its object w a s a c h i l d b e l o n g i n g to a n o t h e r f a m i l y

a n d t h e action took p l a c e n o t i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r the c h i l d ' s

b i r t h . I n t h e e p i s t u l a H a d r i a n i t h e r e is m o r e o v e r one d e t a i l

w h i c h e x c l u d e s any l i n k w i t h t h e a n c i e n t tollere liberum:

in t h e p a s s a g e ους oi γονείς αυτών άνείλαντο u n d e r γονείς a r e

m e a n t , as a l w a y s in t h e l a n g u a g e of the p a p y r i , t h e p a r e n t s ,

2 2

a n d n o t t h e f a t h e r s w h o m t h e text calls c o r r e c t l y πατέρες

(v. 2 1 ) : W h e n suscipere (= άναψεΐσθαι) w a s an action of

t h e f a t h e r a n d m o t h e r , no c o n n e c t i o n can be c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h

t h e a n c i e n t g e s t u r e of t h e pater familias.

I l l GLOSSES TO P . C O L U M B I A I N V . N R . 5 5 3 , VERSO

I n the Annuaire de l' Institut de Philologie et d' Histoire

Orientales et Slaves, V o l . V I I ( N e w Y o r k , 1944) p p . 127ff.

19 Cfr. Stephanus, Thes. II, p. 1575 B : ponitur άναψονμαι pro "tollo" in alia etiam huius verbi significatione, ut άναιράσθαι я-οΐδαϊ, tollere liberos, et

quidem duplici significatione, videlicet pro "suscipere," ut cum quis dicitur liberos ex uxore sustulisse (follows a quotation from Plutarch), et pro "tollere," hoc est non exponere, sed educandos curare. ( ? ) Cfr. also ibid.

p. 1577Α. ^ '

2 0 Cfr. Preisigke, Woerterbuch, s.v., I p. 89, 2 ; his version "ein Kind nach der Geburt aufheben, als sein Eigentum anerkennen, ein Findelkind an sich

nehmen" is not more fortunate than that of v. 11 of our papyrus, cfr. supra,

p. 29. T h e first part, in particuar the phrase nach der Geburt, is as far as the papyri are concerned, anachronistic in the same manner as the version given by Kuebler, Voc. Jur. Rom., cfr. supra n . l l .

2 1 See Perozzi, I.e. p. 216, with reference to B G U . IV, 1110.

2 2 N o t correct is the translation by Gradenwitz I.e. supra n.5 "patres."

Correctly P. M . Meyer, Sav. Ztschr., Rom.Abt. X V I I I , p. 45, whose version of άνείλαντο and άναλημφθίντις {"geboren") is right.

MISCELLANEA PAPYROLOGICA 3 3

lines later. Αίρεΐν (mid. αίρείσθαι) and λαμβάνειν are almost

synonymous, and so are their composita with the same

pre-fix ανά. Both αναιρείσθαι and αναλαμβάνουν (·= tollere,

susci-pere)

19

are used in active sense although grammatically they

differ in the voice. W e meet in the papyri άναφεΐσθαι

fre-quently in the sense of "taking up" an exposed child,

aban-doned by his parents (e.g. άπο κοπρίας)

20

in order to treat

him as one's own. In this connection the word reminds of the

ancient tollere liberum

21

but even there it was not the same

act since its object was a child belonging to another family

and the action took place not immediately after the child's

birth. In the epistula Hadriani there is moreover one detail

which excludes any link with the ancient tollere liberum :

in the passage ους οί γονείς αντών άνείλαντο under γονείς are

meant, as always in the language of the papyri, the parents,

22

and not the fathers whom the text calls correctly πατέρες

(v. 2 1 ) : When suscipere ( = άναφεΐσθαι) was an action of

the father and mother, no connection can be constructed with

the ancient gesture of the pater familias.

I l l

GLOSSES TO P . C O L U M B I A I N V . N R . 5 5 3 , VERSO

In the Annuaire de l' Institut de Philologie et d' Histoire

Orientales et Slaves,

Vol. V I I ( N e w York, 1944) pp. 127ff.

1 9 C f r . Stephanus, Thes. II, p. 1575 B : ponitur αναιρούμαι pro "tollo" in

alia etiam huius verbi significatione, ut αναιράσθαι παΐδας, tollere libéras, et quidem duplici significatione, videlicet pro "suscipere," ut cum guis dicitur libéras ex uxore sustulisse ( f o l l o w s a quotation from Plutarch), et pro

"tollere," hoc est non exponere, sed educandos curare. ( ? ) C f r . also ibid. p. 1577Α.

2 0 C f r . Preisigke, Woerterbuch, s.v., I p. 89, 2 ; his version "ein Kind nach

der Geburt aufheben, als sein Eigentum anerkennen, ein Findelkind an sich nehmen" is not more fortunate than that of v. 11 of our papyrus, cfr. supra, p. 29. T h e first part, in particuar the phrase nach der Geburt, is as far as the papyri are concerned, anachronistic in the same manner as the version given by Kuebler, Voc. Jur. Rom., cfr. supra n . l l .

2 1 See Perozzi, I.e. p. 216, with reference to B G U . I V , 1110.

2 2 N o t correct is the translation by Gradenwitz I.e. supra n.5 "patres."

Correctly P. M . Meyer, Sav. Ztschr., Rom.Abt. X V I I I , p. 45, whose version of àvtlKavто and άναλημφθίντκ ("geboren") is right.