C Pregnant widows in the papyri

Interest in pregnant widows is not confined to Roman legal texts, as we can see from the papyri. Financial considerations, such as the expenses of bearing and rearing a fatherless child and inheritance rights, were obviously a real concern.¹³¹ Marriage contracts might make provision for a wife's pregnancy at the time of divorce [cf.

The archive of Protarchos, an official at Alexandria during the reign of Augustus with whom documents in the form of a synkhoresis were registered [cf. Chapter 2, Part III.A.1 and Chapter 4, Part III.A.1], contains an agreement between a pregnant widow and her mother- in-law.¹³² The agreement gives Dionysarion, the widow, the right to “expose” her newborn child, that is, to abandon it.¹³³ If Dionysarion's husband were alive, he would have the right to decide whether it should be exposed or raised, and it was to be expected that his family would have an interest in whether or not his child was reared [see Part III.A above]. Here Hermione, the husband's mother, relinquishes any interest in the fate of the unborn child. For her part, Dionysarion agrees not to ask for childbirth expenses or make any other financial claims on Hermione, who has already returned Dionysarion's dowry to her. Evidently Hermione was her son's heir and had control of his property; these are not Roman citizens, and did not follow Roman inheritance law. The couple apparently had been married less than two years; probably this was Dionysarion's first pregnancy, and there are no other children to provide for.

BGU IV.

To Protarchos, from Dionysarion daughter of Protarchos with her kyrios, her brother Protarchos, and from Hermione daughter of Hermias, a citizen woman (of Alexandria) with her kyrios, Hermias, the son of her brother Hermias.

Dionysarion acknowledges that the agreement which the deceased son of the same Hermione, Hermias son of Hermias, brought through the same tribunal, through the same Hermione as surety, in the Year 21 of Caesar, Phaophi¹³⁴ is invalid (and) that Dionysarion has gotten back from Hermione, for the sake of her deceased husband, by hand from the house the dowry which she brought to Hermias through Hermione as surety, clothes worth two hundred forty silver drachmas and earrings and a finger-ring... and a hundred silver drachmas. (And she acknowledges) that the agreement. is invalid with all the things declared by it, and that neither Dionysarion nor another on her behalf will take legal proceedings against Hermione either with a view to the things left by the deceased Hermias nor concerning the dowry or their marriage or concerning anything else in general, written or unwritten, from the time before up to the present day. And since also Dionysarion is pregnant, (she acknowledges) that she will not take legal proceedings concerning the childbirth on account of being compliant concerning these things and that it is possible for her. to expose her own baby and to be joined in wedlock with another man, and apart from the things agreed being valid (she acknowledges) that if she transgresses (the agreement) she is liable both for damages and for the penalty which has been determined. We ask (that this document be registered)..

Year 22 of Caesar, Pachon.¹³⁵

The papyri also provide interesting evidence that the elaborate procedure de inspiciendo ventre, as set out in the Praetor's Edict [Part III.A above], was indeed followed in second- century Egypt. A widow named Petronilla, who was a Roman citizen and therefore was expected to follow Roman law, petitioned the iuridicus of Egypt for a guardian for her young son Lucius Herennius, child of her deceased husband Herennius Valens [P.Gen.

Another fragmentary papyrus relating to the same case appears to be a petition to the prefect (governor) of Egypt from Petronilla, appealing for help [P.Gen. II.104]. Evidently Petronilla's in-laws were not satisfied with the inspection procedures (which they had prob­ably demanded) during Petronilla's pregnancy and childbirth, and were now charging that her son Lucius Herennius was illegitimate, as a supposititious child. If they could prove this to be the case, Petronilla's child would not only lose his inheritance rights and his right to Petronilla's husband's name, but Petronilla herself might be liable for calumnia for having falsely claimed to have her dead husband's child [see Part III.B]. Interestingly, it appears that those challenging Petronilla's claim were her husband's relatives on his mother's side, who as cognates would have had less chance of succeeding to him than would his relations on his father's side, who would have been first in line if he had died without legitimate offspring.

We do not know how Petronilla's case turned out. Another case from Egypt, twenty-seven years earlier than that of Petronilla, also involved a widowed spouse accused of substituting a baby, allegedly to replace a deceased legitimate child [P.Fam.Tebt. 20, dated 120—121]. In that case, however, the accused spouse was the husband, Herakleides, who claimed that the child he had raised had been born to his wife Apia before her death. On the other hand, his mother-in-law and her relatives said that Apia's baby had died and Herakleides had reared another in its place (perhaps having picked up an infant who had been exposed at birth; cf. BGU IV.1104 above). Apparently Herakleides was claiming his deceased wife's property on behalf of the child he claimed was hers, and her relatives contested his right to it. Then the child being reared by Herakleides (whether or not born from his wife) also died. At that point the two sides came to an agreement, in which Apia's relatives agreed to drop all charges against Herakleides, and he in turn agreed not to make any claim on them for Apia's property.¹³⁸