The Roman Army, 31 BC–AD 337: A Sourcebook

The army, the local community, the law 155
of a Roman woman. You also wish to establish them as [legitimate
(?)], but I cannot make you their legal father.’
If both parents were Roman citizens, then even though they lacked the right to
contract a legal marriage (conubium), their children would be citizens, but
illegitimate. Illegitimate children who were citizens could be instituted as heirs
and receive a legacy, but might be subject to inheritance tax if they were held
not to be near relatives.
(iii) Year 18 of Trajan, 10 Payni (4 June 115).
Chrotis made a statement through her advocate Philoxenus that she, a
citizen of Alexandria, had married Isidorus, also a citizen of Alexandria,
and that afterwards when he was serving in a cohort, bore him a son,
Theodorus, in whose name she now petitioned, arguing that, {although
she had omitted to make a declaration of his birth}, it was nevertheless
clear that he was the son of that man (Isidorus), from the will which he
made, in which he left the child as heir of all his property. When the
will of Julius Martialis (the Roman name given to Isidorus when he
joined up), soldier of the first cohort of Thebans, was read out, Lupus
consulted with his legal advisers and declared: ‘Martialis could not
have a legitimate son while he was serving in the army, but he made
him his heir legally’.
Under local law, two Alexandrian citizens could legally marry, but the marriage
was held to be dissolved for the duration of military service. It is not clear if
Isidorus became a Roman citizen on enlistment; Roman citizens could not
normally institute a non-Roman as heir, but concessions possibly made by Trajan
extended this privilege to soldiers (see text no. 259). Chrotis was presumably
worried that the failure to register her son would count against him, since
acquisition of an estate required proof that the beneficiary was the lawful son.
Another interpretation at { }—‘that the inheritance tax should be remitted if it
had been overlooked’—refers to the fact that, if Theodorus were judged not to
be a close relative, he would be subject to the inheritance tax.
(iv) Year 5 of our lord Antoninus (142), third extra day. When Octavius
Valens and Cassia Secunda, whose case had been adjourned from
yesterday, came into court, Eudaemon (Valerius Eudaemon, prefect of
Egypt, 142–3), having consulted with his legal advisers, declared:
‘Yesterday, when the memorandum of that splendid man, Heliodorus,
was read out, there was a clear reason for an adjournment, namely, in
order that judgment should be reached in the case of those who are
forbidden (i.e. to marry), in the presence of the mother of this boy.
Today, having considered the relevant circumstances, I confirm the