Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T21:06:23.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roman Registers of Births and Birth Certificates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Fritz Schulz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Students of Ancient History and in particular of Roman Law will, I hope, welcome the following summary of a long discussion. The arduous but successful work which has been devoted to these documents since the beginning of this century is scattered and dispersed in various collections and periodicals, not easily accessible to everybody. A comprehensive and critical statement of what has been achieved so far will therefore be useful. Under war-time conditions it is impossible to reprint these texts here, though a handy and reliable collection of the texts would have been convenient for the reader. I must be content with giving a full list of the documents. I have arranged them in two groups, birth certificates of legitimate and of illegitimate children. Within each group the documents follow in chronological order, as far as possible according to the date of the entry in the register. I have given each a progressive number to facilitate citation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 32 , Issue 1-2 , November 1942 , pp. 78 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Fritz Schulz 1942. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Suetonius, Gaius 8; Apuleius, Apologia c. 89, Metam. 8, 24; SHA Vita Marci 9,7–9, Vita Gordiani 4, 8; Servius ad Verg. Georg. 2, 502; Schol. ad Juvenal. 3, 9, 84.

2 They will be cited in the course of this paper.

3 For the humanistic literature see Schulting and Smallenburg, Notae ad Digesta 4 (1823) ad D. (22, 3) 13, 16, 29Google Scholar, I; Glück, Ausführliche Erläuterung der Pandecten 21 (1820), 302–312, 322–5Google Scholar. See further Dirksen, Die Scriptores Historiae Augustae (1842) 183–191; Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht 2 (3rd ed. 1887), 547Google Scholar; Marquardt, , Das Privatleben der Römer (2nd ed. by Mau 1886) 86Google Scholar; Levison, Wilhelm, Die Beurkundung des Civilstandes im Altertum (phil. Diss. Bonn, 1898)Google Scholar; Bruno Doer, Die römische Namengebung (1937) 11–16.

4 G. Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912) 455.

5 Rotondi 457 and Schiller, P-W Supplem, vi, s.v. ‘Lex Papia Poppaea’.

6 Observationum libri III (Lutet. Paris. 1618), iii, 33Google Scholar.

7 See below, 84.

8 See below, 84.

9 Levison l.c. 5 and 68 deduced from the words ‘more ceterorum’ that before Marcus there existed only a custom to report the births of children at a tabularium. He obviously overlooked SHA Vita Gordiam 4, 8 (though he cited the passage), where we read the same formula: ‘Iam illud satis constat, quod filium Gordianum nomine Antonini signo inlustraverit, cum apud praefectum aerarii more Romano professus filium publicis actis eius nomen insereret.’ This happened after Marcus in A.D. 192. Levison's interpretation was adopted by other scholars, e.g. by Fritz Norden, Apuleius von Madaura und das römische Privatrecht (1912) 126; Scheltema, , Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedeniss 14 (1935), 86–93Google Scholar, and Doer l.c. 12.

10 See Norden, l.c. 18–24.

11 See part ii (JRS, xxxiii).

12 Steinwenter, Beiträge zum öffentlichen Urkundenwesen der Römer (1915) 6.

13 Inst. Just. (1, 3) 4 pr.; Liebenam, Fasti consulares (1910), 25.

14 Marquardt l.c. 87, n. 2; Levison, 16, n. 5.

15 Mélanges Paul Fournier (1929), 131

16 See part ii (JRS. xxxiii).

17 Jörs, P-W s.v. ‘Cervidius.’

18 F. Schulz, ‘Ueberlieferungsgeschichte der Responsa des Cervidius Scaevola’ in Symbolae Friburgenses in honorem Ottonis Lenel (1933) 211, 217.

19 Gaius I, 75, 78; Epit. Ulp. 5, 8; 7, 4; ‘Gnomon of the Idios Logos’ (BGU 5) §39; Seckel and Meyer, P. M., Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. phil. hist. Klasse 26 (1928), 448Google Scholar; Kunkel, P-W s.v. ‘Matrimonium’, 2263; Rotondi, Leges publicae 338. There were exceptions from this rule which need not be discussed here.

20 See also Vita Gordiani 4, 8 (above p.81, n. 9): ‘more Romano professus est.’

21 See below, p. 87.

22 Wilcken, Grundzüge 38.

23 Wilcken, Chrestomathie no. 211; Grassi, Teresa, Aegyptus 3 (1922), 206Google Scholar; Wessely, , Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde xxii (1922), nos. 18, 37, 38, 100Google Scholar.

24 Wilcken, Grundzüge 195.

25 Wilcken, l.c.

26 See below, p. 85.

27 Wilcken, Grundzüge 174, 195. On Greek registers see Levison, l.c. 3–6; Weiss, E., Griechisches Privatrecht 1 (1923), 369 ffGoogle Scholar.

28 D. (27, I) 2, I.

29 C. Just. (2, 42) I, A.D. 223.

30 C. Just. (5, 4) 9.

31 P. Tebt. 285 Gordianus A.D. 239 (= Mitteis, Chrestomathie no. 379, P. M. Meyer, Jur. Papyri no. 4); C. just. (6, 23) 5 Valerianus et Gallienus, A.D. 254; C. Just. (4, 21) 6 Diocletian, A.D. 286; C. Just. (4, 19) 14 and (7, 16) 15 Diocletian, A.D. 293.

32 See also Schol. Thalelaei ad Bas. (48, 20) 15, ed. Heimbach, 4, 774.

33 Mommsen, , Staatsrecht (ed. 3) I, 471Google Scholar.

34 Muttelsee, , Untersuchungen über die lex Julia municipalis (Freiburger phil. Diss. 1913), 31–48Google Scholar, gives a list of the professiones known to us.

35 CIL i (2nd ed.), 593; ILS 6085; Bruns, Fontes7, no. 18; E. G. Hardy, Six Roman Laws and Charters (1912) 136 ff.

36 Muttelsee 15 ff.; Hardy, JRS (1914) 67 ff.; Elmore, , JRS v (1915), 125Google Scholar; Reid, , JRS V (1915), 207Google Scholar ff.; Hardy, , CQ xi (1915), 27Google Scholar ff.; Elmore, , CQ xii (1916), 38Google Scholar ff.; Premerstein, , ZSS 43 (1922), 59Google Scholar ff.

37 Vita Marci (above, p. 80); Servius in Verg. Georg. 2, 502: ‘populi tabularia: ubi actus publici continentur; significat autem templum Saturni, in quo et aerarium fuerat et reponebantur acta, quae susceptis liberis faciebant parentes.’ Schol. ad Iuven. 3, 9, 84 (Marquardt, , Privatleben 88, n. 5Google Scholar): ‘propter professionem scilicet, quam patres natorum deferebant filiorum.’ See further, Steinwenter, Beiträge zum öffentlichen Urkundenwesen der Römer (1915); 5 ff.; Sachers, P-W s.v. ‘Tabularium.’

38 See above, p. 80.

39 Lenel, , Palingenesia 2, 235Google Scholar.

40 Ferrini, , Opere 2, 254Google Scholar; against Lenel, , Paling. 2, 237Google Scholar.

41 D. (50, 16) 87 : ‘Ut Alfenus ait, Urbs est Roma, quae muro cingeretur, Roma etiam qua continentia aedificia essent.’ Cf. D. (50, 16) 2 pr., 139 pr., 154, 173, 199 pr.

42 About the birthplace see below, p. 87.

43 Particularly if he was a soldier; see part ii (JRS, xxxiii).

44 So the lacuna probably has to be supplied. “[Per suorum bonorum] curatorem,’ as suggested by Sanders, is bad, at least according to the terminology of the classical jurists. They never call the procurator a curator bonorum, see Vocab. Jurispr. Rom. 1, 1141, 34 ff. Obviously Partsch Studien zur Negotiorum Gestio I, 75, no. 1 (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelb. Akademie der Wiss. phil. hist. Kl. 1913, 12) is wrong.

45 Cic. pro Caec. 20, 57: ‘is qui legitime procurator dicitur, omnium rerum eius, qui in Italia non sit absitve rei publicae causa exquasi quidam paene dominus, hoc est, alieni iuris vicarius.’ One must not (as, Partsch did) deduce from the verb curat, used in the Tab. Her. that the substantive was curator.’

49 See Bormann, , CIL ii, 220Google Scholar. The problematic professio, mentioned by Cic. ad Att. 13, 33, was equally made by a libertus. In the Lex Agraria I, 56 we read: ‘uteicurator eius profiteatur.’ But this curator is certainly not a procurator, but the curator bonorum, given by the praetor in case of bankruptcy. See Mommsen, , Ges. Schrift. 1, 142Google Scholar; Lenel, Edict. (3 ed. 1927) §224. The professio liberi could of course be made by the child's tutor. Professio by tutor is expressly permitted in the Tab. Her. 1, 4–6.

47 Against Weiss, E., ZSS 49 (1929), 265Google Scholar f.

48 See above, p. 80. Düll, , ‘Triginta dies’ Festschrift P. Koschaker 1 (1939) 27Google Scholar ff.

49 C. Iust. (7, 16) 15 (Dioclet.) : ‘Nee omissa professio probationem generis excludit.’

50 See Tab. Her. 1. 144 : ‘…censum agito, eorumque nomina praenomina patres aut patronos tribus cognomina … ab ieis iurateis accipito.’ Lex Rep. 1. 14.

51 Schubart, Einführung in die Papyruskunde (1918) 332.

52 See nos. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10.

53 Schubart, l.c.; Mommsen, , Röm. Forschungen i (1864), 33Google Scholar, Staatsrecht 3, 201; Marquardt-Mau, Privatleben 18; Chase, George D., ‘The Origin of Roman Praenomina’, Harvard Studies in Class. Philology 8 (1897)Google Scholar; Bruno Doer, Die römische Namensgebung 702 ff.

54 i.e: Cyane, see Ovid, Met. 5, 409 ff.Google Scholar; CIL vi, 20863, ILS 8389.

55 i.e. κρείσσων, see Pape-Benseler, Wörterbuch der griech. Eigennamen (1884) 714.

56 Marquardt-Mau, Privatleben, 83; Mommsen, , Staatsrecht 1 (ed. 3), 203Google Scholar; Doer, l.c. 7 ff.

57 ed. Kempf in his edition of Valerius Maximus.

58 Bremer, , Jurispr. antehadriana i (1896), 86Google Scholar; Seckel-Kübler, , Jurisprud. antejust. I, 21, no. 19Google Scholar.

59 See above, p. 85.

60 Mommsen, , Röm. Forschungen i, 32Google Scholar, Staatsrecht 1, 202. His opinion was generally adopted: see Marquardt-Mau, Privatleben 10, Cagnat, Cours d'épigrap. lat. (3rd ed.) 46 f., Doer, l.c. 9.

61 So already Johannes Schmidt, Philolog. Anzeiger als Ergänzung des Philologus, 1887, 5.

62 See above, p. 80.

63 See above, p. 82.

64 See part ii (JRS, xxxiii).

65 The plural causarum is quite correct. ‘Professiones acceptae citra causae cognitionem’ would be bad. Girard, , Nouv. Rev. Hist. 30, 497Google Scholar apparently overlooked that.

66 See in contrast CIL x, 7852 Bruns, Fontes7 no. 71a; ‘L. Helvius Agrippa proconsul causa cognita pronuntiavit.’

67 D. (48, 10) 13 pr. ‘Falsi nominis vel cognominis adseveratio poena falsi coercetur.’ See Mommsen, Röm. Strafrecht 672.

68 D. (2, 15) 8, 17; (27, 10) 6. Cf. Vocab. Jur. Rom. I, 670, 12.

69 Beseler, , Beiträge zur Kritik der röm. Rechtsquellen 4 (1920) 118Google Scholar; ZSS 51 (1931) 72Google Scholar; 52 (1932) 35.

70 Contra, Steinwenter, Studien sunt röm. Versäumnisverfahren (1914), 13, no. 2 Berger, , Zeitschrift für vergleich. Rechtswissenschaft 39 (1921), 302Google Scholar. Cf. the Index Interpolationum on the two cited passages.

71 nos. 1, 4, 10.

72 nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9.

73 Lex Rep. 1. 14: ‘… ea nomina omnia in tabula in albo atramento scriptos …’ Tab. Heracl. 1. 14 ‘in tabulam in album referunda curato’; 1. 17 ‘in tabula in albo proposita erunt’. See Premerstein, , ZSS 43 (1922), 89Google Scholar; Thes. L.L. i, 1507, 49 ff., 58.

74 Kornemann, P-W s.v. ‘Tabulae publicae’; Sachers, ibid. s.v. ‘Tabula’; Joh. Schmidt, ibid. s.v. ‘Album.’ On the Greek λεύκωμα; see Ad. Wilhelm, Beiträge zur griech. Inschriftenkunde (1909), 239 ff.

75 D. (2, 1) 7 pr. ‘Si quis id quod iurisdictionis perpetuae causa non quod prout res incidit in albo [vel in charta vel in alia materia] propositum erit dolo malo corruperit …’ The words included in brackets are interpolated. In classical times the edict of the praetor was always published in an album, i.e. written on wooden boards. See E. Weiss, Studien zu den römischen Rechtsquellen (1914), 120; Lenel, Edict. (3rd ed.) §7. Both the whole register and a single board of it were called tabula, just as edictum means the edict as a whole as well as a single clause of it. See Wlassak, Edict und Klageform (1882) 17 ff.

76 Mommsen, , Ges. Schrift. 5, 339Google Scholar. A clear idea of such paginae is given by the tabula Veleias (CIL xi, 1147), the tabula Baebianorum (ibid., ix, 1455) and the alba decurionum (ibid., ix, 338; viii, 2403).

76a Mommsen, , Ges. Schriften 5, 339 ff.Google Scholar; Birt, , Das antike Buchwesen (Iwan Müllers Handbuch 1, 3rd ed. 1913), 262Google Scholar; Roberts, C. H., JRS xxiii (1933), 139Google Scholar ff.; Schubart, Das Buck bei den Griechen und Römern (2 ed. 1921), 114.

76b Birt, l.c., 256.

76c Mommsen, , Staatsrecht i (ed. 3), 207Google Scholar; iii, 371.

76d Isidor. Etym. I, 44, 4: ‘Kalendaria appellantur, quae in menses singulas digeruntur.’ See e.g. the register of the Grapheion, , Michigan Pap. ii, no. 121Google Scholar.

76e Gaius 8.

77 Serv. in Verg. Georg. 2, 502 (above p. 84, n. 37): ‘templum Saturni, in quo et aerarium fuerat et reponebantur acta, quae susceptis liberis faciebant parentes.’

78 See above, p. 81.

79 Against, Wilcken, , Archiv für Papyrusforschung 4 (1908), 253Google Scholar.

80 Some extracts taken from the τόμοι ἐπικρισίων mention the προγραϕή, not the παρεπιγραϕή see CIL xvi, 143 ff., n. 3–7; Wilcken, Chrestomathie nos. 458–460. The definition of the παρεπιγραϕή, given by P. M. Meyer, Griech. Papyri der Hamburger Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek 1, 132, is scarcely correct.

81 For the following see Sanders, , Classical Philology 22 (1927), 410Google Scholar, 23 (1928), 250; Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 9 (1931) 65 ff.Google Scholar; Wilcken, , Archiv 9 (1930), 102Google Scholar; Bell, , JEA 17 (1931), 268Google Scholar. Sanders' articles are impaired by the following assertions: I. that the album professionum was called kalendarium; 2. that each tabula contained the entries of a single month; 3. that the number of each tabula corresponded with the number of the month of the imperial year, counted from the accession; 4. that sometimes a child was twice registered in the album. These assertions cannot be true. Sanders seems to have withdrawn his theories in Michigan Pap. iii, 152.

82 Wicken, Grundzüge, pp. liii and lviii.

83 Wilcken, , Archiv 9 (1930), 102Google Scholar. See the well known Sardinian inscription CIL x, 7852 (= ILS 5947), Bruns, Fontes7 no. 71a; Mommsen, , Ges. Schriften 5, 326Google Scholar. Sanders, , Michigan Pap. iii, 167Google Scholar, insists that the words amplioribus literis scriptum est may refer to the whole of the following entry. But every registrar will tell Sanders that in a register the headings, not the entries, are written in larger letters.

84 The volume was begun 29th August 148. Consequently an entry of September 148 cannot have been written on tabula v. The scribe of our copy must have made a blunder (v instead of i or ii). So far Sanders, , Classical Philology 22 (1927), 413Google Scholar, seems to be right.

86 For the following see Cantarelli, , La serie dei prefetti di Egitto (R. Academia dei Lincei, anno ccciii, 1906)Google Scholar; Jean Lesquier, L'armée romaine d'Egypte d'Auguste à Dioclétien (Mémoires de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientate de Caire 1918) 509 ff.; Reinmuth, O. W., ‘The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian,’ Klio, Beiheft 34 (1935), 131 ff.Google Scholar; Hüttl, W., Antoninus Pius 2 (1933), 6 ffGoogle Scholar.

86 CIL vi, 1002 ( = ILS 7269). This inscription shows that Valerius Proculus was praefectus annonae under Pius trib. pot. vii, i.e. 10th December 143–9th December 144. So at the end of 143 he must have been in Rome. In May 144 he was already in Egypt: BGU v 1038 = Mitteis, Chrestomathie, no. 240. See Cantarelli, 49; Lesquier, 513; Reinmuth, 134; Hüttl, 8.

87 BGU 378 = Mitteis, Chrestomathie no. 60; Stein, P-W s.v. ‘Petronius’ (38); Cantarelli, 50; Lesquier, 513; Reinmuth, 134; Hüttl, 8.

88 Stein, , P-W Supplem. 1 (1903)Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Annius’ (86a); PIR i, 117; Lesquier, 513, n. 6; Reinmuth, 135; Hüttl, 12.

89 Kenyon, , Revue de philologie 21 (1897), 5Google Scholar; P. London 2, 75.

90 Mommsen, , Staatsrecht 2, 2 (3rd ed.), 762Google Scholar; F. Schulz, Principles of Roman Law (1936), 141 f.; K. Scott, The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (1936) 102 ff.; Hüttl (1936), 66.