Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T06:05:56.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paternal Power in Late Antiquity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2012

Antti Arjava
Antti Arjava
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

One of the most peculiar features of Roman law was the father's dominant position. In theory, he exercised an almost absolute authority, patria potestas, over his descendants until his own death. The uniqueness of their family system did not escape the Romans themselves. In his mid-second-century legal textbook Gaius explained:

Item in potestate nostra sunt liberi nostri quos iustis nuptiis procreavimus. Quod ius proprium civium Romanorum est; fere enim nulli alii sunt homines, qui talem in filios suos habent potestatem, qualem nos habemus. Idque divus Hadrianus edicto, quod proposuit de his, qui sibi liberisque suis ab eo civitatem Romanam petebant, significavit. Nec me praeterit Galatarum gentem credere in potestate parentum liberos esse. (Inst. 1.55)

Again, we have in our power our children, the offspring of a Roman law marriage. This right is one which only Roman citizens have; there are virtually no other peoples who have such power over their sons as we have over ours. This was made known by the emperor Hadrian in an edict which he issued concerning those who applied to him for Roman citizenship for themselves and their children. I have not forgotten that the Galatians believe that children are in the power of their parents. (Translated by W. M. Gordon and O. F. Robinson, The Institutes of Gaius (1988))

This account immediately raises at least one fundamental question: If patria potestas was a distinctive feature of Roman society, how did the other peoples of the Empire react to it after the universal grant of the Roman citizenship in A.D. 212?

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 88 , November 1998 , pp. 147 - 165
Copyright
Copyright ©Antti Arjava 1998. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

References

1 See recently e.g. Gardner, J. F., Being a Roman Citizen (1993), 32–84Google Scholar; Saller, R. P., ‘Patria potestas and the stereotype of the Roman family’, Continuity and Change 1 (1986), 7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family (1994), 71–153.

2 Voci, P., ‘Storia della patria potestas da Costantino a Giustiniano’, SDHI 51 (1985), 1–72Google Scholar; cf. also idem, ‘Storia della patria potestas da Augusto a Diocleziano’, Iura 31 (1980), 37–100; Sachers, E., ‘Potestas patria’, RE XXII (1953), 1046–175Google Scholar; D. Dalla, ‘Aspetti della patria potestà e dei rapporti tra genitori e figli nell'epoca postclassica’, Atti dell'Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana: VII Convegno internazionale (1988), 89–109. Relatively vague on paternal power is Mitteis, L., Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den östlichen Provinzen des römischen Kaiserreichs (1891, repr. 1935. 1963). 209–12Google Scholar.

3 Taubenschlag, R., ‘Die Patria potestas im Recht der Papyri’, ZRG 37 (1916), 177–230Google Scholar, esp. 207–30; and idem, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri (2nd edn, 1955), 130–49; followed e.g. by Sachers, op. cit. (n. 2), 1067–8, 1136–7, and by many others.

4 A status symbol of the upper classes: Daube, D., Roman Law: Linguistic, Social and Philosophical Aspects (1969), 75–91Google Scholar. An utterly inconvenient relic: Watson, A., Society and Legal Change (1977), 23–30Google Scholar. A legal abstraction for the purpose of inheritance: Thomas, Y., ‘The division of the sexes in Roman law’, in Pantel, P. S. (ed.), A History of Women in the West, I. From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints (1992), 83–137Google Scholar. at 90–111.

5 See above all Saller, op. cit. (n. 1, 1986), and idem, ‘Men's age at marriage and its consequences in the Roman family’, CPh 82 (1987), 21–34. John Chrysostom quite rightly remarked that sons grew annoyed if their fathers lived too long, In Coloss. 1.3, PG 62.303. On the problems of ancient demographic evidence and on the use of model life-tables, see T. G. Parkin, Demography and Roman Society (1992), esp. 70–85; Saller, op. cit. (n. 1, 1994), 9–69; Bagnall, R. S. and Frier, B. W., The Demography of Roman Egypt (1994), esp. 75–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 The exact legal content of the libera administratio is not clear. It did not normally enable the child to give away the property unless he was a senator: in that case Ulpian thought it natural to assume that the administratio included the ability to make donations as well, Dig. 39.5.7; see also 2.14.28.2; 34.4.31.3; 41.2.14.pr; 42.8.12; 46.2–34.pr; Seneca, , Cons. Helv. 14.3Google Scholar etc. More generally on the peculium and property relations between fathers and sons, see Thomas, Y., ‘Droit domestique et droit politique à Rome: Remarques sur le pécule et les honores des fils de famille’, MEFRA 94 (1982), 527–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. Kirschen baum, Sons, Slaves and Freedmen in Roman Commerce (1987); Gardner, op. cit. (n. 1), 55–62.

7 Dig. 4.4.3.4; 34.4.31.3; CJ 5.18.7 (294); Geront., Vita Melaniae 12, SC 90.150, with Arjava, WLL 43. M. Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht, I: Das altrömische, das vorklassische und klassische Recht (2nd edn, 1971), 344; R. P. Saller, ‘Pietas, obligation and authority in the Roman family’, in P. Kneissel and V. Losemann (eds), Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Festschrift für K. Christ (1988), 393–410, at 396–7, 407–8; idem, op. cit. (n. 1, 1994), 123–7.

8 cf. Watson, op. cit. (n. 4), 27–8; Garnsey, P. and Saller, R. P., The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (1987), 47–8.Google Scholar

9 Dig. 6.1.65.1; 31.88.pr/89.pr; 33.8.6.4/10/19.2/26; 34.4.31.3; 40.1.7; CF3.29.2; 3.36.13/18.pr.

10 On freeborn and freedmen in the Roman economy, see e.g. P. Garnsey (ed.), Non-Slave Labour in the Greco-Roman World (1980), with sources and further literature.

11 cf. CJ 8.46.5; Dig. 25.3.5.7; Aug., Serm. 45.2, CCL 41.517; Saller, op. cit. (n. 7, 1988), 406; idem, op. cit. (n. 1, 1994), 126–7; Daube, op. cit. (n. 4), 81–2.

12 Tit. Ulp. 20.10; Just., Inst. 2.12.pr; CJ 4.28.7.1; 12.36; Dig. 14.6.2; 24.1.32.8; 38.2.22; 39.5.7.6; 49.17. Fitting, H., Das castrense peculium in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung und heutigen gemeinrechtlichen Geltung (1871)Google Scholar; La Rosa, F., I peculii speciali in diritto romano (1953)Google Scholar; Kaser, op. cit. (n. 7), 344; Lehmann, B., ‘Das Eigenvermögen der römischen Soldaten unter väterlicher Gewalt’, ANRW 11.14 (1982), 183–284Google Scholar.

13 See e.g. Stein, E., Untersuchungen über das Officium der Prätorianerpräfektur seit Diokletian (1922), 14–16Google Scholar; Boak, A., ‘Officium’, RE XVII (1936), 2045–56Google Scholar; A. H. M. Jones, ‘The Roman civil service (clerical and subclerical grades)’, in idem, Studies in Roman Government and Law (1960), 153–75; idem, The Later Roman Empire 284–602 (1964), 563–6; cf. also Noetlichs, K. L., Beamtentum und Dienstvergehen: Zur Staatsverwaltung in der Spätantike (1981), 20–34Google Scholar.

14 CJ 12.36.6 (444?); cf. Fitting, op. cit. (n. 12), 416–31; La Rosa, op. cit. (n. 12), 218–21 (mainly correct, but her treatment at 208–19 is confusing rather than helpful); Stein, op. cit. (n. 13), 9–10. CJ 6.21.16–17 evidently do not concern the peculium castrense but other privileges of a ‘military will’ cf. Dig. 29.1; CJ6.21; just., Inst. 2.11.

15 CTh 6.36.1 (326); cf. 6.35, esp. 6.35.3 (352?); Lehmann, B., ‘Das “peculium castrense” der “palatini”’, Labeo 23 (1977), 49–54Google Scholar. The silentiarii, who served under the praepositus sacri cubiculi and were certainly members of the palatine staff, are separately mentioned in CJ 12.16.5 (497/9 East), probably because in later language palatini had come to mean only the financial departments and the Constantinian privileges had to be confirmed for the others so as to avoid ambiguity. Cf. Ensslin, W., ‘Palatini’, RE XVIII. 1 (1942), 2529–60Google Scholar, esp. 2536–40.

16 Lawyers: CTh 1.34.2 + 2.10.6 (422 East); CJ 2.7.7 (439 East), 8 (440 East); Nov. Vol. 2.2.4 (442 West). Clergy: CJ 1.3.33 (472 East); Nov. 123.19 (546 East).

17 CJ 3.28.37 (531); 6.61.7 (530). Cf. also Kaser, M., Das römische Privatrecht, II: Die nachklassischen Entwicklungen (2nd edn, 1975), 216Google Scholar; Voci, op. cit. (n. 2, 1985), 33–9.

18 For a brief introduction to the late Roman provincial codes and the early Germanic laws, to be discussed below, see e.g. Schott, C., ‘Der Stand der Leges Forschung’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 13 (1979), 29–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arjava, , WLL 18–23Google Scholar, with references to further literature.

19 The word ‘vindicare’ is here problematic. In Classical law ‘vindicatio’ denoted a lawsuit to recover something which one already owned but did not possess at the moment. In post-Classical law the verb was used much more freely in the sense ‘acquire or assert ownership rights’, irrespective of whether one had already owned the property and whether one now actually possessed it or not; see E. Levy, West Roman Vulgar Law: The Law of Property (1951), 210–19, for examples.

20 Basilicorum scholia 8.1.19, 8.1.23.3, Scheltema B I 72–4, 76; Voci, op. cit. (n. 2, 1985), 34.

21 Otherwise the whole analogy which the law draws to the military would have been broken. That is why the arguments of La Rosa, op. cit. (n. 12), 208–16, do not seem convincing. However, it is true that the testamentary capacity of the various classes of functionaries is somewhat obscure; see CJ 1.3.49.pr; 3.28.37 (showing that the matter was under dispute in Justinian's time).

22 e.g. Dig. 6.1.65.1; 37.7.8; Fragm. Vat. 294; CJ 3.36.4 (Alex. Sev.); 6.20.12–13 (294); 1.3.33 (472 East); 12.16.5 (497/9 East); 6.20.21 (532 East). True, there are also passages where it appears possible to lose the acquired property to the father if it was not safe-guarded by the right of the peculium castrense, Nov. Val. 2.2.4 (442 West); CJ 12.16–5.pr (497/9 East); Just., , Inst. 2.12Google Scholar.pr.

23 See e.g. Humbert, M., Le Remariage à Rome (1972), 207–63Google Scholar; Gardner, J. F., ‘Another family and an inheritance: Claudius Brasidas and his ex-wife's will’, LCM 12 (1987), 52–4Google Scholar; E. Champlin, Final Judgments: Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills 200 B.C.–A.D. 250 (1991), 125–6; Arjava, WLL, 98–100; and below, n. 58.

24 CTh 8.18; Arjava, WLL, 100–5, with further references. On the problems of the legal terminology (including the act of cretio, through which the child and the father together demanded the inheritance), see e.g. Voci, P., ‘Il diritto ereditario Romano nell'età di tardo impero: il IV secolo (prima parte)’, Iura 29 (1978), 17–113Google Scholar, at 56–79; and Fuenteseca, P., ‘Maternum patrimonium (Revisión de CTh. 8,18,1 y 8,18,2)’, Atti dell'Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana: IX Convegno internazionale (1993), 331–47.Google Scholar

25 cf. ‘ius peculii’, Nov. Theod. 14.8 (439 East); see also Humbert, op. cit. (n. 23), 246–52, although he slightly stretches the evidence.

26 CJ 6.61.6 (529); 6.61.8.5a (531); CTh 8.18.9 (426 West).

27 CTh 8.18.3 (334); CJ 6.60.4 (468); Arjava, , WLL, 101–3Google Scholar; and for the many problems of step-parenthood in late Roman law, 172–7.

28 CTh 8.18.6 (379 West) and 7 (395 West); not yet in 8.18.5 (349 East).

29 CTh 8.19.1 (426 West); CJ6.61.2 (428 East); Nov. Theod. 14.8 (439 East); CJ 6.61.4–5 (472/3 East).

30 CJ 6.61.6 (529); Just., , Inst. 2.9.1Google Scholar. Cf. Lex Rom. Vis. 8.9–10(= CTh8.18–19); Lex Rom. Burg. 22.1–2.

31 Tablettes Albertini 11; 15; 18; 21; 29; 30.

32 On marriage and divorce, see Corbett, P. E., The Roman Law of Marriage (1930), 53–67Google Scholar, 122–5; Gardner, J. F., Women in Roman Law and Society (1986), 10–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 41–4; Treggiari, S., ‘Consent to Roman marriage: some aspects of law and reality’, EMC/CV 26 (1982), 34–44Google Scholar; eadem, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (1991), 459–61, 476–82; Beaucamp, J., Le Statut de la femme à Byzance (4e-7e siècle), II, Les pratiques sociales (1992), 145–6, 153–8, 297–300, 305–6Google Scholar; Arjava, WLL, 29–41, 44–6, with further references.

33 Dig. 37.12.5; 48.8.2; 48.9.5; Gaius of Autun, 4.85–6 (FIRA II 224); CTh9.15.1; 11.27.1; 4.8.6.pr, with CJ 8.46.10; Lex Vis. 6.5.18–19. On the whole topic, Kaser, op. cit. (n. 7), 341–2; idem, op. cit. (n. 17), 204; Voci, op. cit. (n. 2, 1980), 60–1, 66–74, 79; Y. Thomas, ‘Vitae necisque potestas. Le père, la cité, la mort’, in Du châtiment dans la cité: Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique (Coll. ÉFR 79, 1984), 499–548; W. V. Harris, ‘The Roman father's power of life and death’, in R. S. Bagnall and W. V. Harris (eds), Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. A. Schiller (1986), 81–95; Saller, op. cit. (n. 7, 1988), 395–6; idem, op. cit. (n. 1, 1994), 115–17; cf. also J. Goody, The Oriental, the Ancient, and the Primitive: Systems of Marriage and the Family in the Pre-Industrial Societies of Eurasia (1990), 405.

34 Tert., , Adv. Marc. 2.13.5Google Scholar, CCL 1.490; Lact., , Inst. 4.3.14–17Google Scholar, CSEL 19.280; Lib., , Or. 62.24–5Google Scholar; Ep. 1375; Jerome, , Ep. 82.3Google Scholar; John Chrys., Vidua elig. 9–10, PG 51.329; De inani gloria 30, SC 188.120; Aug., , Serm. 9.4Google Scholar; 13.9, CCL 41.114/182; see Saller, op. cit. (n. 7, 1988), 405; idem, ‘Corporal punishment, authority, and obedience in the Roman household’, in B. Rawson (ed.), Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (1991), 144–65; E. Eyben, ‘Fathers and sons’, ibid. 114–43; Saller, op. cit. (n. 1, 1994), 142–53.

35 See e.g. Chrys., Dio, Or. 15.18Google Scholar; Dig. 48.19.16.2; CJ 8.46.3 (227); CTh 9.13.1 (365/73); and works in the preceding note.

36 e.g. Aug., , In evang.Joh. 7.7Google Scholar, CCL 36.70; In psalm. 32.2.1.3, CCL 38.249; see Shaw, B. D., ‘The family in Late Antiquity: the experience of Augustine’, Past and Present 115 (1987), 3–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 19–26, with ample documentation, and much (perhaps too much) stress on violence inside the family; see also Poque, S., Le Langage symbolique dans la prédication d'Augustin d'Hippone: Images héroiques (1984), 193–224Google Scholar; and cf. now Garnsey, P., ‘Sons, slaves—and Christians’, in Rawson, B. and Weaver, P. (eds), The Roman Family in Italy: Status, Sentiment, Space (1997)Google Scholar.

37 cf. Dig. 1.16.9.3; CJ 8.46.1/3/5; CTh 9.13.1; BGU VII.1578; cf. also Aug., , In Joh. 30.8Google Scholar, CCL 36.293.

38 cf. above, n. 7.

39 See CJ 3.28; Dig. 5.2; Gardner, op. cit. (n. 32), 183–90. For later developments, Kaser, op. cit. (n. 17), 514–21.

40 Ambr., , De Virginibus 1.62–4Google Scholar; Nov. Maj. 6.3 (458 West); CJ 1.3.54.5 (533/4); Nov. 115.3.11; cf. also Lib., Decl. 46 (a similar threat against a son). And see Arjava, WLL, 157–67, for the diverse problems caused by Christian asceticism.

41 Sidon., , Ep. 4.23Google Scholar; Lib., , Or. 62.24–5Google Scholar; cf. Theodoret., , Hist. eccl. 3.17Google Scholar, repeated by Cass., , Hist. 6.44Google Scholar; Ambr., , Hex. 5.4.10Google Scholar; 5.18.58; 6.4.22, CSEL 32.1.147/184/218; Aug., , Serm. 355.3–5Google Scholar, PL 39.1570; In psalm. 32.2.3, CCL 38.248; 93.17, CCL 39.1318; In Galat. 39, PL 35.2132. See also Champlin, op. cit. (n. 23), 14–15, 107–11.

42 cf. Aug., , Serm. 21.8Google Scholar; 45.2, CCL 41.283/517; In psalm. 17.32, CCL 38.99; 102.20, CCL 40.1469; Ambr., , Hex. 5.18.58Google Scholar, CSEL 32.1.184f. Shaw, op. cit. (n. 36), 20–5; Saller, op. cit. (n. 1, 1994), 122–3.

43 Nov. 18.1 (536); the new quota is attested in PMasp. III.67353 (569). See also P.Masp. 1.67097 = FIRA III.15, with Beaucamp, op. cit. (n. 32), 79–81; and the Syro-Roman Law Book L 9; cf. W. Selb, Zur Bedeutung des syrisch-römischen Rechtsbuchs (1964) 72–86.

44 Lex Rom. Burg. 45.4–5; Sent. Pauli 4.5 + int, and CTh 2.19.2/4 + int, in the Lex Romana Visigothorum (and its Epitomes).

45 Lex Vis. 4.5.1/3; cf. Zeumer, K., ‘Geschichte der westgotischen Gesetzgebung IV’, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 26 (1901), 91–149Google Scholar, at 138–46; King, P. D., Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom (1972), 246–7.Google Scholar

46 Ed. Roth. 168–71; Leg. Liutpr. 113; cf. Ed. Roth. 158–60; Leg. Liutpr. 5; 65; 102. See also Lex Burg. 1; 24–5; 51;75. On Merovingian wills, cf. Arjava, , WLL, 72, 97–8Google Scholar.

47 cf. Dig. 1.6.3; Just., , Inst. 1.9Google Scholar; Dion. Hal. 2.26. Enfranchized peregrines, like the family of Herodes Atticus, naturally had to adopt the idea of potestas, Philostr., , Soph. 1.21.7Google Scholar(= 521).

48 L.Irnit. 21–2; 86; cf. Gaius, , Inst. 1.93–95Google Scholar; González, J., ‘The Lex Irnitana: a new copy of the Flavian municipal law’, JRS 76 (1986), 147–243Google Scholar, at 148–9, 154, 176–7, 203–4, 231; Gardner, op. cit. (n. 1), 188–90.

49 P.Oxy. II.237; P.Mil.Vogl. IV.229; cf. Lewis, N., ‘On paternal authority in Roman Egypt’, RIDA 17 (1970), 251–8Google Scholar.

50 See esp. P.Oxy. II.237, VI. 14 and VII.41–2; in BGU VII.1578 the veteran father probably refers to Roman law.

51 cf. Dig. 5.1.4: ‘Lis nulla nobis esse potest cum eo quem in potestate habemus, nisi ex castrensi peculio’.

52 See Taubenschlag, op. cit. (n. 3, 1916), 177–207; idem, op. cit. (n. 3, 1955), esp. 130–1, 148.

53 See e.g. Honoré, T., Emperors and Lawyers (2nd edn, 1994)Google Scholar; Huchthausen, L., ‘Herkunft und ökonomische Stellung weiblicher Adressaten von Reskripten des Codex Iustinianus (2. und 3. Jh. u.Z.)’, Klio 56 (1974), 199–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, ‘Zu kaiserlichen Reskripten an weibliche Adressaten aus der Zeit Diocletians (284–305 u.Z.)“, Klio 58 (1976), 55–85Google Scholar.

54 As a random sample, see e.g. CJ 2.2.3; 3.31.6; 4.19.16; 4.29.8; 5.16.16; 5.71.7; 6.9.4; 6.14.1; 6.20.6/9/11/15; 6.30.1; 6.46.5; 6.57.2; 6.59.1; 8.46.1–8; 8.48.1–4; 8.53.2/17; 8.54.5; 10.50.2; etc. A simple search for strings ‘potesta*’ or ‘emancipat*’ in the Justinianic Code would produce dozens of further examples.

55 BGU VII. 1578 (c. 200); P.Diog. 18 = P.Harr. 1.68 = FIRA III.28 (225); P.Gen. 1.44 (260); P.Oxy. XIV.1642 (289); LIV.3758.156–80 (325); P.Panop. 28 = SB XII.11221 (329); possibly to be restored in SB 1.5692 (3rd century) and P.Oxy. XIV.1703 (c. 260). See also P.Lond. III.977.14 (330), where the daughter is said to be ep' exousias moi.

56 P.Oxy. X.1268 (3rd century); XLI.2951 (267); IX.1208 (291); SBX.10728 (318).

57 They denoted a state of subjection (without technical import) already in classical Greek, see Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, s.v., but were not used in papyri before the Roman period.

58 CPR VI.78 (the document is fragmentary and might be reconstructed somewhat differently from the present edition). Cf. e.g. CJ 3.28.25 (301); 6.25.3 (216); 6.42.15 (256); 8.54.5 (294); Arjava, WLL, 99 nn. 72–3; and above n. 23.

59 CPL 206 = FIRA III.14 (3rd century); cf. Gaius, , Inst. 1.132–4Google Scholar. In the second century mancipatio took place before the praetor or provincial governor, but later the act was possible before local magistrates as well. That must have considerably eased the governors' work after 212 while it also helped those people who lived far from the provincial capital. A written document was favoured but not compulsory. CJ 4.21.11; 8.48; Sent. Pauli 2.25.2–4; Gaius, , Epit. 1.6.3–5Google Scholar; Syro-Roman Law Book L 3. In so far as the empty formality of mancipatio was observed in Late Antiquity it was hardly a real obstacle for anyone; it was officially abolished only by Justinian, CJ 8.48.6; Just., , Inst. 1.12.6Google Scholar; Selb, op. cit. (n. 43), 169; Kaser, op. cit. (n. 17), 212.

60 CPR VI.12–30 (300/1); cf. CPR VI p. 60.

61 P.Grenf. 1.49 (220/1); P.Oxy. VII.1040 (225); P.Gen. 1.9 (251); PSI VIII.873 (299).

62 P.Oxy. LI.3638 (220); XIV.1697 (242); IX.1208(291); P.Bub. 1.4(221); P.Lond. III.954 = MChr 351 (260); P.Giss. 34 (265/6, paternal grandfather); P.Coll.Youtie 11.71–2 (281); see also P.Oxy. XXXIV.2723 (3rd century).

63 P.Oxy. IX.1208 (291); X.1268 (3rd century); XLI.2951 (267); possibly also in XIV.1703 (c. 260); SB 1.5692 (3rd century).

64 BGU 11.667 (221/2); PSIXV. 1546 (222); X.1126 (3rd century); SB VI.9069 (3rd century); probably also CPR 1.218. For the guardianship of adult women, see Arjava, WLL, 112–23.

65 SB 1.1010 = FIRA III.61 (249). The Greek text has been preserved also in a more complete copy, SB VI.9298. Another bilingual document with related contents is P.Oxy. VIII.1114 = FIRA III.63 (237).

66 Most other papyri here discussed are either private contracts or communications to lower officials.

67 PSI X.1126 (3rd century); CPR 1.218 (probably to be so restored); SB V.7996 = PSIXII.1239 (430), discussed below. After 212 only one father appears as an epitropos of his child, BGU II.667 (221/2). The ‘irregular’ use of kyrios for epitropos is otherwise attested just once in the whole Roman period, P.Lond. 111.903(103–17).

68 P.Oxy. IX. 1208; see Volterra, E., ‘Il senatoconsulto Orfiziano e la sua applicazione in documenti egiziani del III secolo d.C.’, in Atti dell'XI congresso intern, di papirologia (1966), 551–85, at 576–85Google Scholar.

69 CIL X.7457 = ILS 8377 = FIRA III.56 (175). Cf. the registration of his own and his sons' slaves by a citizen father, PSI V.447 (167).

70 See a list of cases in Chantraine, H., Freigelassene und Sklaven im Dienst der römischen Kaiser, Studien zu ihrer Nomenklatur (1967), 35–41Google Scholar; e.g. CIL VI pp. 899–906. Expressions like ‘Onesimus Germanici Caesaris libertus’ or ‘Marci Aurelii Caesaris libertus’ do not conform with Dig. 37.14.13: ‘Filius familias servum peculiarem manumittere non potest. Iussu tamen patris manumittere potest: qui manumissus libertus fit patris.’

71 CJ 3.36.4; 6.20.13; Fragm. Vat. 274; 277; 281; 294–6; etc.

72 Epit. Cod. Greg. Vis. 3.8.2 (FIRA II.661); cf.P.Gen. 1.44 (260); SB X.10728 (318); P.Oxy. XII. 1470 (336). Many other sales mentioned in previous notes could be interpreted in the same sense, e.g. P.Oxy. IX.1208;XXXIV.2723; LI.3638; P.Lond. III.977. J. Rowlandson, Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt: The Social Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome (1996), 194, remarks that in the Roman period parents sometimes bought land for their unmarried daughters, perhaps in order to provide them with capital at their marriage.

73 The only proof adduced, P.Mon. 1.1.11–13 (574), is too obscure to be useful. P.Lips. 1.28 (381), discussed below Section V, is perhaps more relevant but still ambiguous. See Taubenschlag, op. cit. (n. 3, 1916), 207–14, 223–30; his later work, op. cit. (n. 3, 1955), 130–49, avoids any clear conclusions.

74 In classical Roman law, tutela impuberis ended at the age of twelve (for girls) or fourteen (for boys). In the third century the tendency was to stress twenty five years as the real threshold of adulthood (‘aetas legitima’). Now children under twenty-five regularly had a curator minoris, who by and by assumed the same powers as a tutor. See e.g. Kaser, op. cit. (n. 7), 352–72; idem, op. cit. (n. 17), 222–37. In third century papyri the age of majority is not explicitly defined, cf. Hagedorn, D., ‘Noch einmal zum Volljährigkeitsalter in Ägypten nach der Constitutio Antoniniana’, ZPE 113 (1996), 224–6Google Scholar; however, the frequent appearance of kouratores indicates that the Roman concept had been adopted.

75 CJ 2.20.5 (293); 5.62.19 (294); 5.71.7 (283); 10.50.2 (Diocl.); CTh 8.12.2 (316).

76 Dig. 50.1.2; 50.2.6.4; 50.2.7.3; 50.4.3.16–17; CJ 4.13.2–3; 7.71.3; 10.32.1/5; 10.41.1/3; 10.50.2; 10.52.4; 10.62.1–4.

77 CPR 1.20 (250); P.Oxy. XIV.1642 (289); see also P.Oxy. XII. 1418(247).

78 In chapters L 2–3, 18, 40, 42, 44. The Greek original of this somewhat mysterious work probably dates back to the late fifth century; the standardized Latin rendering in FIRA 11.751–98 is handy but not always accurate. See Selb, op. cit. (n. 43); Yaron, R., ‘Syro-Romana’, Iura 17 (1966), 114–64Google Scholar; Kaser, op. cit. (n. 17), 49–50.

79 The idea of patria potestas has permeated all of the Corpus Iuris Civilis: for a short statement, see Inst. 1.9 and 1.12.

80 Lact., , Inst. 4.3.15Google Scholar, CSEL 19.280; Naz., Greg., Or. 37.6Google Scholar; Basil., Ep. 276; Symm., , Ep. 9.150Google Scholar; John Chrys., Qual. duc. ux. 2, PG 51.226; Conc. Hipp. (393) 1, CCL 149.20; Eunap., Soph. 495 (heautou kyrios = suiiuris); Aug., , Ep. 262.11Google Scholar, CSEL 57.631; Serm. 45.2, CCL 41.517; Sidon., , Ep. 7.2.7Google Scholar.

80 Lact., , Inst. 4.3.15Google Scholar, CSEL 19.280; Naz., Greg., Or. 37.6Google Scholar; Basil., Ep. 276; Symm., , Ep. 9.150Google Scholar; John Chrys., Qual. due. ux. 2, PG 51.226; Conc. Hipp. (393) 1, CCL 149.20; Eunap., Soph. 495 (heautou kyrios = sui iuris); Aug., , Ep. 262.11Google Scholar, CSEL 57.631; Serm. 45.2, CCL 41.517; Sidon., , Ep. 7.2.7Google Scholar.

81 P.Oxy. IX. 1206 (335); P.Lips. I.28 = MChr 363 (381). Cf. Kaser, op. cit. (n. 17), 208–9.

82 cf. e.g. P.Oxy. XII.1470.13 (336); L.3581 (4/5th century); XVI.1890 (508); SB XII.11075 (early 5th century); PSI IX. 1075 (458); P.Michael. 43 (526); P. Hamb. I. 23 (569); SP XX. 145 (6th century); P. Grenf. II. 87 (602); P.Monac. I.1.11–13 (574).

83 P. Ness. III. 18 (537); P. Masp. I.67006V.14–21 (6th century); P. Oxy. I. 129 = MChr 296 = FIRA III.21 (6th century).

84 Lact., , Inst. 4.3.15Google Scholar, CSEL 19.280; see also Conc. Hipp. (393) 1; Brev. Hipp. 13, CCL 149.20/37; CTh 9.43.1 (321); 9.13.1 (365/73); CJ 5.70.7.1 (530); 6.61.8.5a (531); 5.17.12 (534); Nov. 22.19 (535).

85 e.g. it empowered children to administer properties devolving from the mother or more distant sources, Suet., Vitell. 6; Plin., , Ep. 4.2.2Google Scholar; 8.18.4; see also Cic., Dom. 37; Liv. 7.16.9; SHA, Pert. 11.12; Did.Jul. 8.9.

86 Gaius, , Inst. 1.137aGoogle Scholar; Dig. 1.7.31; 30.114.8; 36.1.23.pr; 37.12.5 (an exceptional case); CJ 8.48.3 (293); 8.48.4 (Diocl.).

87 e.g.CJ 3.31.6 (224); 4.19.16 (294); 6.14.1 (286); 6.20.6 (244); 6.57.2 (293); 6.59.1 (294); Consult. 6.10 (293). On the emancipation of women, which appears perfectly normal in Roman legal sources, see Arjava, WLL, 42.

88 See above n. 54; Watson, A., ‘Private law in the rescripts of Carus, Carinus and Numerianus’, TRG 41 (1973), 19–34Google Scholar, at 23, and idem, op. cit. (n. 4), 24–5. Gardner, op. cit. (n. 1), 71–2, is certainly right in stressing the economic motives.

89 Conc. Hipp. 1, CCL 149.20. See also Jerome, , Ep. 107.6Google Scholar (‘perfecta aetas et sui iuris’); Symm., , Ep. 1.6Google Scholar; 9.150 (Symmachus probably and his wife certainly emancipated).

90 CTh 8.13.6 + 8.18.9 + 8.19.1 (426 West).

91 Aug., , Serm. 45.2Google Scholar, CCL 41.517; In psalm. 93.17, CCL 39.1318 (‘dimittunt ut faciant quod volunt’); cf. In Galat. 39, PL 35.2132; Shaw, op. cit. (n. 36), 20–4. Cf. also the text of the African council mentioned above.

92 Nov. Val. 35.10 (452) + int; cf. Lex Rom. Burg. 26; Cod. Eur. 321; Kaser, op. cit. (n. 17), 203 n. 10. For the earlier law, seeCTh 8.18.1.2; 8.18.2; 8.18.9.pr. Cf. also CJ 6.61.6.3, where Justinian discusses a roughly similar solution in the case of emancipation.

93 CJ 12.3.5; cf. Nov. 81; Just., , Inst. 1.12.4Google Scholar. In Lib., Ep. 731, emancipation is probably meant, and portrayed as a generous act which is earned by the son's good behaviour; in a similar vein CTh 9.43.1.3 (321 West) and the Syro-Roman Law Book L3.

94 Kaser, op. cit. (n. 17), 203, 213, 497–511; e.g. CJ 6.58.11, 6.58.15.1b; Nov. 118; CTh 3.7.1 (on paternal consent to marriage); Nov. 22.19 (on divorce).

95 See e.g. Gaius, , Epit. 1.5–6Google Scholar; CTh 8.13.2.int; 8.14.1; 8.19.1; 9.43.1; Epit. Cod. Greg. Vis. 3.10.1 (FIRA II. 662); all with their interpretationes. Cf.also filiusfamilias in Sidon., , Ep. 7.2.7Google Scholar; 7.9.21.

96 Lex Rom. Burg. 38.1; 14.4–5 (note the inclusion of the mother); 22.1–2 (formally consonant with Roman law, now somewhat ambiguous, when taken from the original context and omitting any mention of paternal usufruct, cf. CTh 8.18–19, and above Section II); 9.4; 26.1.

97 ‘Parentes’ could mean either ‘parents’ or ‘fathers’. The sense ‘fathers’ is common in late Latin legal language, see e.g. ‘in parentum potestate’, CTh 8.18.1 (319); CJ 1.3.54.5 (533/4); 3.28.37.2 (531); 7.71.7 (531); ‘his potestatis iure ad parentes reversis’, CJ 6.61.2 (428); ‘quod parentibus causa emancipationis obtulerint’, CTh 8.18.2. interpr. (West, late 5th century); and numerous other cases where the sense is clear from the context. On the other hand, even the looser translation ‘relatives’ is possible, as e.g. in CTh 8.18.6. interpr., and frequently in Germanic laws. See further ThLL, s. v.

98 Lex Burg. 1; 24.5; 51.1–2; 75; 78; Cod. Eur. 305; 321; 336; Lex Vis. 4.2.2/13; 4.5.5; 5–2.2; cf. Zeumer, op. cit. (n. 45), 110–12, 146–8; King, op. cit. (n. 45), 243–4.

99 Form. Tur. 23; the phrase seems to have been modelled after Gaius, , Epit. 1.5.1Google Scholar; cf.Form. And. 11a; 37; Form. Tur. 21; while these Formularies are generally considered sub-Roman in tone, others are more firmly rooted in Germanic tradition, e.g. Form. Marc. 2.9; 2.13. The authentic charters of the Frankish ruling élite of course display no hint of patria potestas.

100 See Meyer-Marthaler, E., Römisches Recht in Rätien im frühen und hohen Mittelalter, Beihefte der Sweitzerischen Zs. für Geschichte 13 (1968), esp. 131–8Google Scholar.