Proof of Citizenship

In my life outside the computer I'm an immigration officer, so I suppose it was only a matter of time before this question occurred to me.

Roman citizens had certain rights and privileges that other residents of the empire/republic didn't. How did citizens prove their entitlement to these rights and privileges? Another way to ask the question, How would someone know that someone claiming to be a citizen was actually not? Were there penalties for making false claims of citizenship?

The question is of special interest in the more distant provinces, where who was and wasn't a citizen would have been more problematic.

A. N. Sherwin-White, historian and one-time president of the UK's Society for Promotion of Roman Studies, wrote a book that may interest you, MC. It's The Roman Citizenship. Here's an excerpt that appears to answer your questions about how a Roman citizen might have proven his entitlement to certain rights and privileges:

The only documentation in the Republican period was the registration of the young adult citizen in the tribal lists that were drawn up and revised at Rome by the censors every five years. Municipalities kept their own local lists also, which acquired the validity of censorial lists when a law of 44 transferred the census to the magistrates of the Roman municipalities, who were required to register the citizen population with their full names, patronymics, and tribes, and with a schedule of their property.

Sherwin-White goes on at length, and then comes to what may answer your second question regarding citizens in the more distant provinces, starting with soldiers:

But with the steady extension of the citizenship by individual grants to provincials isolated in peregrine communes, and with the informal settlement of large numbers of Italian immigrants in the provincial territories, a more effective means of registration became necessary. Formal documentation of the grant of citizenship to provincial soldiery appears first in 89 B.C., in the shape of a bronze tablet recording the decree of a proconsul enfranchising a unit of Spanish cavalrymen in the Social War, who are all named in a general list. Presumably each soldier received a copy. The cities of persons of higher status enfranchised by Octavian in c. 40 B.C. received a copy of a decree detailing all the privileges of their new status, while his auxiliary veterans could acquire copies of the enabling edict that enfranchised them. But it is only with the regularization of the grant of citizenship to the all time-expired auxiliaries by Claudius that a standardized document appears. This is the small bronze diptych known as the diploma civitatis, containing a brief and uniform formula conferring the Roman citizenship on the holder and his descendants, who is indicated by his name and military unit. These documents were not normally used for civilians, who received instead a copy in libellus form of the brief imperial warrant authorizing the registration of their enfranchisement in the archives at Rome.

 

Diplomata and libelli provided for new citizens. For the mass of the citizenry, for whom censorial registration at five-yearly intervals was an inefficient instrument, adequate provision was finally made by the creation of an official system of compulsory birth registration under the social legislation of Augustus (A.D. 4)... The Roman citizen was required to register the birth of his children within thirty days before a Roman official, and he received a wooden diptych recording the declaration, which acted as a certificate of citizenship for the child for the rest of his life. Like the military diplomata this contained the names of seven witnesses, and provided a presumptive proof of citizen status... Similarly the enfranchisement of freedmen, which depended upon a formal act, was recorded in a documentary tabella manumissionis. Citizens of diverse origins thus came to have some form of documentary evidence of their status.

I can't imagine anyone other than soldiers actually carrying their citizenship documentation around with them all the time, but perhaps in the provinces even the civilians were expected to have their proof of citizenship handy -- particularly in areas of social unrest where insurgency was a problem. I also imagine that there must have been penalties -- and severe ones, at that -- for false claims of Roman citizenship, considering how proof of Roman citizenship could make a difference between life and death (or, freedom and enslavement) for someone accused of doing something that he shouldn't have been doing.

-- Nephele

Thanks!

I can't imagine anyone other than soldiers actually carrying their citizenship documentation around with them all the time, but perhaps in the provinces even the civilians were expected to have their proof of citizenship handy -- particularly in areas of social unrest where insurgency was a problem.

I've been wondering about that. Specifically, what about when Paul of Tarsus appealed to Caesar? I forget where he was when he was arrested, but how would the governor/whoever have verified he was entitled to the appeal? Would he have been carrying a passport or birth certificate? Here in Vermont we're soon going to have "enhanced" state-issued drivers' licenses that will stand in for a passport when crossing to and from Canada; would governors have issued similar documents?

<SNIP>

I can't imagine anyone other than soldiers actually carrying their citizenship documentation around with them all the time, but perhaps in the provinces even the civilians were expected to have their proof of citizenship handy -- particularly in areas of social unrest where insurgency was a problem. I also imagine that there must have been penalties -- and severe ones, at that -- for false claims of Roman citizenship, considering how proof of Roman citizenship could make a difference between life and death (or, freedom and enslavement) for someone accused of doing something that he shouldn't have been doing.

 

-- Nephele

I have seen it suggested (I believe by Margaret Roxan who published several standard works on Diplomata) that the distribution of diplomata may indicate that these individual bronze tablet copies of the unit record of retirements posted in Rome were actually purchased by veterans intending moving away from where they had served and presumably from where they were well known by men still serving in their unit.

This view of an 'official' requirement for a personal diplomata does seem to become more likely when you consider that most such have been found well away from where their owners presumably served as auxilliaries.

Melvadius

I seem to recall reading that there was a citizens' ring. Is that purely a fantasy?

I seem to recall reading that there was a citizens' ring. Is that purely a fantasy?

Perhaps you're thinking of the signet ring that many Romans used to sign documents as their personal seal of identification? I've been through Sherwin-White's The Roman Citizenship and can't find any mention of a special "citizen's ring" for use as proof of citizenship.

I've been wondering about that. Specifically, what about when Paul of Tarsus appealed to Caesar? I forget where he was when he was arrested, but how would the governor/whoever have verified he was entitled to the appeal?

Marcus Caelius, perhaps it was Paul's name (in addition to required witnesses vouching for the person identifying himself thus) which served as Paul's proof of citizenship, as he would have been registered by that name with whatever governing authorities kept track of Roman citizenship.

In another thread I had briefly mentioned Paul when writing of the difference between a cognomen/agnomen and a signum or supernomen. "Sha'ul" was the ethnic, birthname of Paul -- his signum -- no doubt used by his family members. But as a Roman citizen he would have adopted (or inherited from his father, if he too were a citizen) a Roman name: Paulus or Paullus.

It would be this Roman name which would indicate the fact that its bearer was a Roman citizen. Hence the importance of many a new citizen acquiring a Roman name and using it, so that others would recognize the status of the so-named individual. For the purpose of traveling abroad, it would seem likely that the prudent citizen might arrange for some sort of documentation to accompany him on his journey, no doubt sealed with the recognizable signet ring of the issuing authority of his city or province.

-- Nephele

Paul, or any Roman citizen, would have had to carry quite a passport with himself. Nephele?

I seem to recall reading that there was a citizens' ring. Is that purely a fantasy?

 

Perhaps you're thinking of the signet ring that many Romans used to sign documents as their personal seal of identification? I've been through Sherwin-White's The Roman Citizenship and can't find any mention of a special "citizen's ring" for use as proof of citizenship.

 

-- Nephele

Alternatively you may be thinking of the gold ring worn to signify 'equestrian' status.

Melvadius

I think in many cases if you claimed to be a citizen you were taken at your word, and heaven help you if you got found out. If you read between the lines the romans left clues that people did try to pass themselves off as different classes than they actually were. We have runaway slaves trying to join the legions, former slaves assuming the status of freedman on the death of their master etc. However, people generally didn't travel much, and in the small town or local area of the big city, if you posed as something you weren't chances are someone would know or realise. Since romans were very class concious I doubt such circumstance would be allowed to continue for very long. Was proof of citizenship required? In most cases no, so without the need why would proof be provided? In the case of retiring soldiers its a mark of respect to be awarded the bronze plaque and something I've no doubt that most kept with pride, and with a rough nature and soldiers accent, probably necessary to assuage suspicions. That brings up another point. A well dressed roman with a clearly educated voice and bearing isn't likely to be questioned. Would anyone dare? A man walking up to someone who appears to be of a wealthy class and demanding he proves his citizenship is being disrespectful after all, and going back to the point of local knowledge, it wouldn't take a magistrate long to figure out who was telling lies.

I seem to recall reading that there was a citizens' ring. Is that purely a fantasy?

 

Perhaps you're thinking of the signet ring that many Romans used to sign documents as their personal seal of identification? I've been through Sherwin-White's The Roman Citizenship and can't find any mention of a special "citizen's ring" for use as proof of citizenship.

 

-- Nephele

 

Alternatively you may be thinking of the gold ring worn to signify 'equestrian' status.

 

Melvadius

Aha! By George, I think I've got it -- if not actual evidence of the Roman practice, then at least a fictional source from whence you might have read something about a "citizen's ring", and perhaps this might be what you're recalling?

MPC, have you ever read any of Steven Saylor's stories? I had the serendipitous experience today of reading a short story of Saylor's -- "A Gladiator Dies Only Once" -- and came upon the following passage:

When we reached the outskirts of Ravenna, I asked a man on the road for directions to the gladiator camp of the lanista Ahala. The man eyed the two of us curiously for a moment, then saw the iron citizen's ring on my finger.

I'd be especially interested to know from where Saylor may have gotten this bit about iron citizens' rings.

Hmmm... I wonder whether we can prevail upon our gracious Flavia Gemina (who I believe happens to be a friend of Saylor's) to ask him about it for us, and help settle the question?

Oh, and I should mention that this short story can be found in a highly entertaining anthology I'm currently reading: The Mammoth Book of Roman Whodunnits.

But wait, there's more! Our own Flavia Gemina has contributed one of her own Roman whodunnits ("Bread and Circuses") to this same anthology.

-- Nephele

Salve, Amici.

Here comes Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities:

"DIPLOMA, a writ or public document, which conferred upon a person any right or privilege. During the republic, it was granted by the con

Hmmm... I wonder whether we can prevail upon our gracious Flavia Gemina (who I believe happens to be a friend of Saylor's) to ask him about it for us, and help settle the question?

-- Nephele

Do we need to bother Steven? I thought it was common knowledge that Patricians wore iron rings and Equestrians wore gold rings. I'll go have a search before I email him...

Thanks for the plug, Nephele. Sorry I haven't been on the Forum more, I have a book deadline!

Proving citizenship is not so simple. Even if you have a diploma (which seems you can't before Augustus, or at least is not attested) who can demonstrate that you are the right owner of it?

About St. Paul, it is perhaps possible the governor had only some doubt about his citizenship, and so sent him to Rome. At Rome probably there were all lists, so they could prove Paul citizenship.

I think we should imagine that administration problems are configured more differently for Romans rather than for our modern and occidental offices.

Roman administration is concerned the most part with registering roman property because this is important for taxes and for regulating access on public affairs. Equites, senators, patricii and all the well-to-do class are normally well known through urban milieu and so other signs of mark were probably not so often requested. For all the others, is not necessary for administration to grant any right, but it's up to individuals to take advantage of their "privilegia", if they have possiblity to do so.

Administration is interested only about recording what is important for the public order, is not there for granting rights.

Perhaps, a general view like that I suggest, gives more count of our sources about Roman administration.

I'm however very intrested to this theme, and I surely want not to cast the last word on it.

There's an interesting case when a Greek was accused of falsely assuming Roman citizenship under Claudius. The emperor had him face the prosecution in a Greek Chiton, and defend himself in a toga. Bear in mind that in the Roman world people were not particularly mobile, and most people in an area knew each other and made inquiries about strangers. Even Rome itself was more of a mosaic of tightly-knit neighbourhoods than a human antheap. As a result, it was usually straightforward to check on someone's status if there was a doubt - a query to the man's home town would usually be enough.

Bear in mind that in the Roman world people were not particularly mobile, and most people in an area knew each other and made inquiries about strangers. Even Rome itself was more of a mosaic of tightly-knit neighbourhoods than a human antheap. As a result, it was usually straightforward to check on someone's status if there was a doubt - a query to the man's home town would usually be enough.

I'm not so sure that people in an area knew so much each other. Perhaps this could be easier in province towns, but for Rome, specially imperial one, we have prove of the contrary.

There is a very instresting study by David Noy, Foreigners at Rome, London 2002, where you can find that much population at Rome was due to immigration. The epigraphic evidence prove that population turnover was very high and from everywhere in the empire. This turnover his well known also for the well-to-do-class and senators.

Eveniences about corn distribution testify that in Rome were as one milion inhabitants, as well as a normal modern metropolis. So if we do not know each other every our neighbours so was probably for Romans.

Here I'd like to point a problem that could occur about practices and opportunities on certifying identities.

In Tabula Heracleensis (Caesar's age - see M.H. Crawford, Roman Statutes vol. I London 1996) we also have track that tenants were responsible about identity and professio of inhabitants of insulae in their possess. Infact, new inhabitants often resided in rent house.

But renting in Roman world was a job more for slaves and liberti than for tenants. The tenant asked for every insula, that is every habitation building as a whole unity, a fixed sum to his libertus/conductor. The conductor should know all inhabitants, but he was not directly interested about their origin, but only about the payment of rents, that probably were collected from other slaves. In a single apartment of an imperial insula lived from 12 to 20 persons. The simpler way to payment was that, each six months, the conductor slave went to collect from every cenaculum the sum convened. Was up to the inhabitants to collect that sum from the single residents. If the sum was not collected, one of the 12 to 20 inhabitants (that one who was interpelled from the conductor slave) run the risk to be questioned from the conductor and then from the tenant.

So was all inhabitant interest, before that of conductor, to have the sum every six months form his living companions. But this mean that was no need for the tenant or conductor to know every inhabitant of his house.

Finally, in an epistle of Pliny the Young (10,29) we can read about some slaves being levied in the army as volounteers, for a simple error of the militar tribune about their identity. We know nothing about their being recognized, but surely they could furnish false identity when they was recruited (they lied not only on their status of slaves, but also sholud give false names, because slave names were easily recognizable).

On this theme, is very intresting J.F. Gardner, Proofs of Satus in the Roman World, published in BICS 1986