Boudewijn Sirks was educated in Law at the University of Leiden, followed by studies in Theology and Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam, where he took up his first post as a Research Assistant in Philosophy.
In 1978, he returned to his original discipline and became Lecturer for Legal History at the Utrecht University, later Senior Lecturer for legal techniques. In parallel, he completed a PhD in Law at the University of Amsterdam, where he became Reader and acting Chair for Legal Techniques in 1989. In 1997 he moved to the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe University in Frankfurt, where he took up a chair in History of Ancient Law, History of European Private Law and in German Private Law until his appointment, effective per 1 February 2006, as Regius Professor of Civil law, from which chair he retired on 30 September 2014.
Professor Sirks' research interests span ancient history of law, papyrology, European private law and civil law. He is an editorial member of the Journal of Legal History and of the Studia Amstelodamensia. Studies in Ancient Law and History. He spent time as Visiting Scholar at the Columbia University, New York and Visiting Professor at the University of Kansas, and recently as Visiting Professor at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (Santiago). Professor Sirks is a Corresponding Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and Vice-President of the Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana.
- It is suggested that before the lex Canuleia any childrenfrom a union between a patrician man and a plebeian woman would from the plebeian perspective be legitimate and Roman citizens, but would be called by patricians spurii since from the patrician perspective they were offspring of a marriage, not recognised in their group and in sacral law (no confarreatio), and they would not count amongst the patricians for offices and priesthoods. The woman would be called paelex.ISBN: 978-88-921-3407-2It is generally assumed that the main manuscript of the Theodosian Code, Vat.Reg.Lat. 886, was copied in the 6th century in South-East Gaul, although Italy as provenance is not excluded. This manuscript contains marginal summaries, of which the origin is also attributed to Gaul. However, it can be shown that the largest group was made by one of the scribes (V2*) after 535 and before 554, on the very manuscript, that this was very likely done in Rome, and that the scribe was a Greek, perhaps a Byzantine official. This conclusion bears upon the provenance of Vat.Reg.Lat. 886. The errors in the Greek constitution CTh 9,45,4 imply that it cannot have been copied in the east. It must have been done in the west and not the Code, sent over in 437, was used (or else the Greek would be in order), but a copy of this Code, in which the scribe had misunderstood the Greek and made errors, which then figure in Vat.Reg.Lat. 886. The copying must have been done after 535 and just before the Summaria were made because the author of the Summaria was one of the correctors.