A Divorce documents from Roman Egypt
Census documents from Roman Egypt suggest that divorce was not uncommon [Bagnall- Frier 1994, 123—4], and further evidence for divorce in Egypt is found in divorce agreements and other documents relevant to the break-up of a marriage.
As with marriage, neither written documentation nor notification of authorities was necessary to legalize a divorce. However (again, as with marriage), property was often involved, in particular the wife's dowry, which she was entitled to reclaim upon divorce (unless it was stated otherwise in the marriage contract). Moreover, both spouses would want to be free to marry another person, and to be sure that they would not later be liable to legal charges related to their former union. The following documents range in date from the late first century B.C.E. to the late fourth century C.E.621 A synkhoresis from
The archive of Protarchos, which preserved eight marriage contracts from Alexandria during the reign of Augustus [see Chapter 2, Part III.A.1], also offers three documents relating to divorce. The following agreement (a synkhoresis, as are the marriage contracts from the archive) was drawn up in 13 B.C.E., after four years of marriage.63 Its wording and format are virtually identical to another divorce document from the archive [BGU IV.1104]. Both are divorces by mutual consent. (The third document [BGU IV.1105] is the complaint of an abused wife against her husband, asking Protarchos to help her obtain a divorce.)
The wife in this agreement has been identified as a Jew on the basis of her father's name, Sambathion, which at this date was a name used only by Jews; possibly the husband was also.64 However, the terms of the divorce are not in keeping with either early Jewish law of the Torah or the later rabbinical writings.
In Jewish law, a wife could not divorce her husband, though she could ask a tribunal to force him to divorce her.65 This divorce, by mutual consent, is no different from the divorce agreements of contemporaraneous non- Jewish Greeks in Egypt, and reflects the cosmopolitan Hellenistic environment of Alexandria and the Mediterranean [Modrzejewski 1961, 1995]. Like the marriage contracts between Jews written in Greek from Judaea and Arabia [Chapter 2, Part III.B], it raises questions about the influence of Greco-Roman practices on Jews in the Near East.BGU IV.1102, 13 B.C.E.
To Protarchos, from Apollonia daughter of Sambathion with her kyrios, her mother's brother Herakleides son of Herakleides, and from Hermogenes, son of Hermogenes from the deme of Archegetes (?).66 Apollonia and Hermogenes acknowledge that they have separated from each other from the union which they had established according to an agreement (synkhoresis) through the same court in the thirteenth (year) of Caesar (Augustus) in Pharmouthi.67 And Apollonia (agrees) that she has also received back from Hermogenes by hand from his house what he received from her parents, Sambathion and Irene, as dowry, on her behalf according to the agreement, sixty (drachmas) of silver.68
(They agree) that their marriage agreement is invalid from now on, and that neither Apollonia nor any one else on her behalf will take legal action against Hermogenes concerning a demand for the dowry, and that they both (will not take legal action) against each other either about their marriage or anything else at all up to the present day, from which day also it is permitted to Apollonia (to marry) another man and for Hermogenes (to marry) another woman, both of them being not liable (to prosecution). And that the one trangressing (the agreement) will be liable to the prescribed penalty.
In the seventh year of Caesar (Augustus), 14 Phamenoth.69
2 A wife’s complaint
The divorce agreements surviving on papyri primarily deal with disposition of spousal property (especially the wife's dowry) and release of both partners from legal liability in the future.
They do not usually reveal the reasons for the break-up of the marriage. Other types of documents can be more helpful in that regard, particularly petitions to local authorities filed by one of the spouses against the other. A number of such complaints have survived, some from aggrieved wives, some from husbands. Few people, no matter how troubled their marriage, would go so far as to request legal action against their spouse. In most cases, divorce would be a family matter, for which there might be no documentation (apart from perhaps a receipt for the return of dowry). The petitions to officials illustrate the most dysfunctional type of marriage, often where one spouse has abandoned the other and spent or absconded with the other's property. Abuse is mentioned only by women; men complain only of abandonment and removal of property [Arnaoutoglou 1994; Rupprecht 1998].In the following petition from Oxyrhynchus, the wife Syra complains of physical abuse and abandonment by her husband Sarapion. They had earlier been married by synkhoresis (cf. BGU IV.1050, the synkhoresis between the Alexandrian couple translated in Chapter 2, Part III.A.1). Here, as in BGU IV.1050, it appears that the husband had agreed to repay his wife's dowry plus a 50 per cent penalty if he did not honor his obligations to her. Note that Syra claims that Sarapion, being poverty-stricken, had actually moved into her parents' home with her; cf. Chapter 2, Part III.A.6 for such an arrangement as part of a marriage contract in the fourth century [P.Ross. Georg. III.28].70
P.Oxy. II.281, 20-50 C.E.
To Herakleides, priest and archidikastes and in charge of the circuit-judges and other courts, from Syra the daughter of Theon. I lived in marriage with Sarapion, giving him a dowry according to an agreement (synkhoresis) for the amount of 200 drachmas of silver.
And indeed, I received him into my parents' home, since he was completely impoverished, and I conducted myself without reproach in everything. But Sarapion, having disposed of my dowry for whatever purpose he wished, did not leave off mistreating me and insulting me and laying his hands on me, and after he rendered me in need of the necessities (of life), he finally left me, when I had become impoverished. Therefore I request you to order him to be brought before you, in order that he may be arrested and forced to pay back my dowry to me plus fifty percent. I retain and [will retain] (my right of legal action) in regard to other matters [I have against him].3 A divorce agreement from Tebtunis
The parties to this divorce agreement are the wife Thenstotoetis (also spelled Thenstouetis), her father Heron (who is also her kyrios), her husband Lysas, and a certain Sosas, who represents Lysas. Interestingly, Lysas is a former slave (of a woman Herakleia, not of Thensotoetis or her father). The couple had married only three years earlier (when the bride was about thirteen). The dowry and the parapherna are returned to the wife's father, and she is free to marry again. All parties except Heron are illiterate, so Lysas and Sosas have a “subscriber” (hypographeus) sign for them, and Heron signs for his daughter. The divorce agreement, like the earlier marriage contract, was drawn up and registered in the grapheion (record-office) of Tebtunis.71
P.Lips. 27, 123 C.E.
In the seventh year of the Emperor Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus, 21 Phamenoth, in Tebtunis of the Polemon division of the Arsinoite nome. Thenstotoetis, about sixteen years old, without distinguishing marks, with her kyrios her father Heron son of Neilos about forty-four years old, with a scar on the little finger of his left hand, and the same Heron, and the one who was the husband of Thenstotoetis, Lysas the freedman of Herakleia the daughter of Lysimachos, about twenty-two years old, with a scar on his right cheek, and Sosas, son of Areotos, about fifty-four years old, with a scar on his right shin — these four acknowledge to each other that Thenstotoetis and Lysas have jointly annulled their marriage with each other, which was established by them (and) completed by virtue of a written agreement (homologia) of marriage through the same record-office in the fifth year of our lord Hadrian Caesar,...
[day missing] Hathur, and they have also presented this [agreement] for the purpose of having it annulled and invalidated.And (they acknowledge) that Heron has back from Sosas the three hundred drachmas of silver (given) through the dowry agreement and all the parapherna. And that it is possible for each [of them] to dispose of [his own] things as he or she chooses, and (it is possible) for Thenstotetis to join herself in marriage again, to [whatever] man she wishes, not [being] open to accusation from Lysas. And that they will not bring charges against each other [about] any aspect of the things connected with the marriage nor about any matter in general up to the present day. [Subscriber] Marepsemis son of Pakebkis, [about] forty-eight years old with a scar on his nose.
[written in a second hand] Lysas, freedman of Herakleia, [and] Sosas son of Areotos. that they have jointly annulled the marriage with Thenstouetis (sic), and that they will not bring charges against each other in general. Marepsemis son of Pakebkis72 wrote on their behalf since they do not know letters.
[in a third hand] Thenstotoetis with her kyrios her father Heron — I have annulled the marriage and I have back the dowry. Heron — I wrote on her behalf because she does not know letters.
[in a fourth hand] I have signed it.
Roman">4 A grave-digger’s divorce
This divorce agreement (which calls itself an apozuge} from the early fourth century from the Great Oasis was made by the gravedigger Soulis (also called Soul) and his wife Senpsais. The separation is said to be due to an evil spirit (daimon), which conveniently avoids assigning blame.
The daimon who causes couples to split up appears in later divorce documents also [see Bagnall 1987, 55—6; cf. Rupprecht 1998, 69]. This document also contains one of the earliest references to hedna, gifts given by the husband, which become a regular feature of late antique marriages [see Chapter 2, Part II.C]. The beginning and end of the document are lost.73P.Grenf. II.76, 305-306 C.E.
... Soulis, grave-digger of the toparchy of Kusis, to Senpsais, daughter of Psais, her mother being Tees, gravedigger from the same (toparchy), greetings.
Since it has happened by means of some evil demon (daimon) that we have separated from each other (in regard to) our common marriage, therefore I, the afore-mentioned Soul, acknowledge that I know that I have been paid back in full all the things bestowed on her by [me in any way whatever], (and) that I am sending her away [and] will [not] bring charges later about either the marriage [or] about the hedna, but it will be possible for her to go away and to marry whenever she wishes. And (I), the afore-mentioned Senpsais, (acknowledge) that I have been paid back in full from him, the afore-mentioned Soul, all the things given [to him]74 for the dowry together with other. of my utensils and in any other way whatever. And (we acknowledge) that we will not bring charges later against each other henceforth about any matter whatsoever in general, [written] or unwritten, because of the divorce being final.
This deed of divorce, having been written in duplicate with signatures, shall be [valid] and secure as if [put] in a public record-office, and having been asked, [I have] agreed.
[The fragmentary ending gives the regnal years of the emperors Constantius and Maximian, indicating a date of 305/306.]
5 A late fourth-century divorce agreement
Two other divorce agreements survive from the late third-early fourth century [P.Oxy. XLIII.3139 and P.Oxy. XXXVI.2770]. But for the next two centuries, from the reign of Constantine up to that of Justinian, only one divorce deed is extant. This is in line with the survival rate for marriage contracts during this period [see Chapter 2, Part III.A]. The following document (which calls itself a perilysis, a “cancellation” or “release”) is a declaration from a woman, Aurelia Allous, to her husband, Aurelius Elias, agreeing that their marriage has ended, that she has no further claim on him and that he can remarry.75 As with Soulis and Senpsais [P.Grenf. II.76, above], an evil daimon is blamed for breaking up their marriage. Note that here the wife is accompanied by her mother as synestos [see Chapter 1, Part III.E].
Divorce agreements from the early fourth century, and later ones from the sixth century, explicitly state two copies were made. In two cases from the sixth century, both copies have survived, one copy being addressed to the wife from the husband, the other to the husband from the wife [P.Cair. Masp. II.67153 and 67253, dated 568; P.Lond. V.1713 and P.Flor. I.93, dated 569]. Though this agreement of 391 does not mention two copies, it is likely that there was also a declaration from Elias to Allous, stating that he had no further claim on her and that she was free to remarry [Beaucamp 1992, 142]. Like the divorce documents from the early fourth century, this one records a divorce by mutual consent, which was unaffected by contemporary legal restrictions on divorce. (Of course, the reality behind the document may have been different, but it was in the interest of both partners to agree to the divorce rather than risk future legal problems.)
P.Stras. III.142, 391 C.E.
In the consulship of Tatianus the most illustrious prefect of the sacred prefecture and of the most illustrious Flavius Symmachus, 18 Phaophi of the fifth indiction.76 Aurelia Allous daughter of Onnophrios, with her mother Aurelia Apina assisting (synestos), from the village Nestou of the Arsinoite nome, to Aurelius Elias son of Ariston from the village Onnito(n) of the same nome:
Whereas I, Allous, have lived with you, Elias, in marriage for some time, (however) it seemed best, due to a wicked daimon (which) came upon our marriage with each other, to depart, having been set free. In regard to this, I, Allous, acknowledge that I have no argument with you, Elias, about our marriage or any other debt, written or unwritten, demand, complaint, (or) official inquiry, once and for all, simply (and) completely. And (I acknowledge) that you, Elias, have the power to enter another marriage, with you being blameless regarding this. And there will be... a document of divorce (perilysis) and having been asked, I acknowledged (that it was so).
I, Aurelia Allous, the one mentioned above, with her mother Apia assisting, delivered (this document). [the rest is fragmentary]
[on the back of the papyrus] Perilysis of Allous, daughter of Onnophrios.
Despite the paucity of divorce agreements from the fourth and fifth centuries, it is clear that marriages continued to break up, often by one spouse (usually the husband) simply abandoning the other. We learn of such break-ups from petitions sent by abandoned spouses to local officials, of which a number have survived.77 In these documents, the petitioner asks not for a reconcilation or return of the partner who deserted, but rather the return of the dowry or other belongings which the abandoning spouse had taken.
6 A mother’s complaint against her son-in-law
The following petition was submitted to a syndikos7 from the mother of an abandoned wife, Aurelia Ptolema. Ptolema had earlier given her daughter in marriage, presumably after the death of the girl's father Diogenes [cf. P.Oxy. X.1273 in Chapter 2, Part III.A.4]. Unfortunately, the petition is very fragmentary, but it appears that the daughter's husband, Theon, has abandoned the marriage for good (having taken his bedding and left town) and is asking Aurelia Ptolema for the return of the pre-nuptial gifts which he had given (the hedna, on which see P.Grenf. II.76 above and Chapter 2, Part II.C). There is no mention in the extant part of the petition of the dowry which Arilla would have brought to the marriage; perhaps Theon had already returned the dowry, and now wanted the hedna in return, or perhaps Ptolema demanded the return of the dowry in a missing part of the petition.
It is not clear that Theon is responsible for the marriage's demise; it is possible that Arilla returned to her mother, taking her baby and the hedna with her, and that Theon only moved out after his wife's desertion. In a petition of 362 from Hermopolis [P.Cairo Preis. 2], Aurelius Serenus Pinoution claimed that his wife's mother, after telling him that her daughter had a daimon,79 had given her to another man while Pinoution was away, and in the same town a year later, another husband claimed that his wife had waited until he was absent and had then left him, taking with her the bedna and some important books of his [P.Lond. V.1651]. The mother's role in these cases, and in P.Oxy. LIV.3770 below, is worth noting. In other petitions of the period, it is either the wife's father [P.Panop. 28] or the abandoned wife herself [PSI I.41; PSI IX.1075; P.Oxy. VI.903; P-Oxy. L.3581] who makes the complaint.
Note how Aurelia Ptolema asserts that Theon “despised her weakness.” Claims that men had taken advantage of their unprotected and “weak” condition are made by other female petitioners (particularly widows) of the late third and early fourth century; it was evidently a useful rhetorical strategy, though may well reflect social reality, where women would have depended on husbands or fathers to defend them against other males [cf. P.Oxy. XXXIV.2713 (297) and P.Oxy. I.71 (303) in Chapter 1, Part IV.C.2; P.Sakaon 36 (c.280) in Chapter 5, Part II.B.4].80
P.Oxy. LIV.3770, 334 C.E.
To Aurelius Julianus, syndikos of the city of the Oxyrhynchites.
From Aurelia Ptolema, daughter of Dionysios, from the same city.
I gave our daughter Arilla, daughter of Diogenes... to a husband, a certain Theon, for the purpose of marriage... from whom he also had a male son whom she nursed for a year and a half.81 And he has not furnished support to the child nor to his own wife. But already he has even been in foreign parts for a long time, having taken his bedding.. And having left my daughter in widowhood, he even tries to demand back from me the bedna which he provided, despising my weakness. Therefore, not being able to bear the man’s lack of conscience, I am handing in this petition, asking that if he remains in the same stubbornness and. the laws. support of his son and wife. not even wanting to give sustenance. that she is estranged from her husband.
In the consulship of Flavius Optatus the patrician and of Anicius Paulinus, most splendid men, 30 Phamenoth.82
[in another hand] I, Aurelia Ptolema, have handed in (this petition).
As we have seen [Part II above], late Roman law imposed significant restrictions on the right of wives (and, to a lesser extent, husbands) to repudiate their spouses unilaterally. Did the new legal restrictions have any impact on the divorce rate, or on the ability of women to end an unhappy marriage? Egypt is the only area of the Empire where evidence for actual practice survives to any extent, so it is natural to look to the papyri for evidence of the influence of law on lived reality. But it is impossible to find direct references to the law in either the divorce agreements or the complaints against spouses of the fourth and fifth centuries. The lack of divorce agreements might be thought to signify a decline in divorce, but the numbers of papyri documents of all types decline in this period, so no conclusions can be drawn [see further Bagnall 1987].
In one petition by a wife against her chronically unfaithful and abusive husband, we are told that she had sent him a repudium, “through the tabellarius of the city, according to imperial law” [P.Oxy. L.3581]. His response was not to invoke imperial legislation against unilateral divorce, but to break into the house and assault her. Unfortunately this petition is not dated, so we do not know to what law the petitioner refers (she may mean only “the law” in a general sense).83 Possibly she is thinking of Theodosius II's law of 439, which abolished earlier restrictions and returned (albeit for only ten years) to the pre-Constantinian legal situation [Novel 12 of Theodosius II, dated 439; see Part II above]. But another wife's petition also says that she sent a repudium, and it is dated 390, long before Theodosius’ law; we do not even know what law on divorce was in effect in Egypt at that period.84 The husband’s response was the same: he broke into the house and beat her mercilessly; breaking her hand and blackening her eyes [P.Lips. 39]. Violent husbands like these were unlikely to care about what the law did or did not allow them to do. If restrictions on divorce had any effect at all on people’s behavior, it may have been to make husbands more abusive (in the knowledge that their wives could not easily divorce them85) and to make both wives and husbands more likely to end a bad marriage by simple abandonment, rather than by seeking a divorce through the courts [Evans Grubbs 1995, 239-42].