Patria_Potestas

A Roman father had the power of patria potestas. However it could be argued that this was not an unrestricted power and that there was a large difference between Roman law and the actualities of Roman life. A Roman father or legally a Pater Familias was a male citizen sui iuris, who was in his own power, without a pater familias of his own. 1 The pater familias had several dimensions to his authority, he had potestas over his children and his wife if she was in manus, over his human property and protectorate over the families’ property. 2 A Roman father’s influence over the life of his child began at birth when the decision to expose or keep the child was made. However this was not only within the power of a Father, a Mother could make a similar decision without moral or legal penalty. Rights of the Roman Father extended to the sale of a child, chastisement, noxal surrender, demanding the divorce of his married children and the legal right to put to death an adult offspring with advice from family council. 3 However it could be argued that the legal right to sentence an adult to death was not necessarily accepted practice or custom. Crook states that the Roman’s kept law sharply apart from religion and morals, so that the legal character of patria protestas stands out in sociologically misleading clarity. ( J.Crook. CQ. 17.1. p.114.). Although the killing of guilty sons appears to of taken place, the sensationalism of accounts such as Livy’s of the consul who put his sons to death for treason, focus’ more on the fact that the “consul” was inflicting the punishment rather than the “pater”. 4 Sallurst also cites Fulvius who was executed by his father, who was a senator, for participating in a conspiracy. In the same text Sallurst discusses the work of Lentulus in encouraging a revolution through the strata of society but he does not record an equal amount of men chastised or executed by their fathers or the state for their treasonous behaviour. In fact there appears to be only a few examples of father’s executing their sons over several centuries. 5 In later periods the Romans interpreted their own earlier law as a father not being able to kill his son without a hearing, but that he must accuse his son before the prefect or provincial governor. 6 Although patria potestas gave a pater the right to kill an adult son, it does not appear to be a common event. Possibly because the power of public opinion set limits for the conduct of a pater familias 7 and a father, on seeking council was swayed by more impartial advisors or quiet naturally was checked by the affection he felt for his son. 8 There are certainly many examples of sons in potestas, that are difficult and in need of chastisement, Cicero’s own son and his complaints of his son’s behaviour being a well cited example. However Cicero makes no effort to curb his son, little lone to inflict a physical punishment. Patria potestas was not confined to the right to life and death but affected the everyday life of sons in Rome. A son who was in potestas was legally without the right to own property and his capacity to borrow money or spend was limited by the funds of his peculum handed down from the pater 1 Richard. P. Saller, ‘Pater Familias, Mater Familias and the Gendered Semantics of the Roman Household,’ Classical Philology Vol 94 No.2 (1999) p.184. 2 Ibid., p.184 3 John Crook, Patria Potestas, Classical Quarterly, new series, 17.1 (1967) p.113. 4 Livy Histories 2.5 5 Richard. P. Saller, ‘Patria potestas and the stereotype of the Roman family,’ Continuity and Change 1 (1986) p.18. 6 Ulpian 45.8.2 cited in R.Westbrook, ‘Vitae Nescisque Potestas, Historia 48.2 (1999) p.206 7 John Crook, Patria Protestas, Classical Quarterly, new series, 17.1 (1967) p.122. 8 W.K.Lacy, ‘Patria Potestas’, in B.Rawson,ed, The Family in Ancient Rome. New Perspectives, London 1986, p.133. familias. However the legal precedence does not appear to be reflected in everyday practice of Roman families. Although there was no legal age of majority for a son, as far as public life went a man’s status as pater or filius familias made little difference. A filius appears to of been able to act as a witness, a senator, to serve in the army and progress through the cursus honorum in the same way a peer who was sui iuris was able to. 9 J.Crook points out that patria potestas had little to no force in public life and this then required a set of rules of correct behaviour for when pater was a private citizen and filius a magistrate. However to assume that a father could not maintain private influence over his son’s public and political behaviour would be naive. Should a father choose to, he could attempt to influence his son through threats of disinheritance or by withholding funds needed for public office. 10 A son maybe filius but this did not mean that he was living at home, as aristocratic men tended to move from the parental home when they married and large estate holders could have a son superintend affairs on one of the estates held by the familias. 11 The threat to remove funding for a household and the public humiliation of returning to the home of the pater familias could have been a motivating factor in the public decisions of the filius. A father’s legal approval for a marriage and the ability to compel a divorce, while politically advantageous for a son, could of been used to influence and persuade a son to act in public according to his paters familias’ aspirations. 12 A Roman father had patria potestas over the public and private life of his son but custom and affection appeared to of tempered the legal right to “punish” adult sons. As head of the familias a father also had patria potestas over his daughters and his wife, if she was in manu. A daughter even a healthy one, appears to of been more likely to be exposed at birth and the killing of daughters and wives is often linked to the concept of chastity and moral virtue. A father ensured the chastity of his unmarried daughter or punished her “fall from grace” and had the legal power to kill his wife for adultery in manu or not, but only if he killed both wife and lover at the same time, to wait required a court case. 13 However the penalty for unchaste behaviour was also exacted on sons. Fabius, a censor killed his son for dubious chastity but then exiled himself for the killing. 14 The Pontifex maximus had potestas over a Vetsal’s person during her time in the temple but not over her property, legally she was sui iris and morally under potestas. 15 The concept of pater familias although used for men and women in relation to legal rights of property, was not extended to women in the general because mothers could not have potestas over their children. 16 W.K.Lacy ‘Patria Potestas’ in B.Rawson, ed., The Family in Ancient Rome. New Perspectives, London 1986, p 127. 10 Richard. P. Saller, ‘Patria potestas and the stereotype of the Roman family,’ Continuity and Change 1 (1986) p10. 11 ibid. P 17. 12 Ibid. P 8. 13 R.Westbrook, ‘Vitae Nescisque Potestas, Historia 48.2 (1999) p.208. 14 V. Maximus Memorable Doings and Sayings 6.1.5 15 W.K.Lacy ‘Patria Potestas’ in B.Rawson, ed., The Family in Ancient Rome. New Perspectives, London 1986, p 126. 16 Richard. P. Saller, ‘Pater Familias, Mater Familias and the Gendered Semantics of the Roman Household,’ Classical Philology Vol 94 No.2 (1999) p.185. 9 Daughters became sui iris after the death of their father and could also inherit his property if she was still in potestas to her father. However unlike her brothers a daughter legally required a governor or tutor to act for her legal matters and provide guidance on the managing of her property. Although it does not appear that culturally, a woman was required to accept such guidance and that she was entitled to govern her property including slaves without much interference. Saller (1999) points out in legal discussions of pater familias as owner-testator, the term certainly applied to female owners as well. While there appears to be little argument on the right of children to inherit property from their pater familias, there is some discussion on how this was actually achieved. Assuming that pater familias was viewed as a severe patriarch whose power not only defined the Roman family but controlled the family property, and considering that there was a public presence or role associated with the pater familias in his exercise of these property rights 17, then raising more than one healthy son to adulthood stretches the legal concept of pater familias. Crook (1967) suggests a consortium of brothers, common heirs that remain in joint ownership of the family property but not necessarily living in the one house. However if the pater familias had the duty to increase the patrimony to be handed down 18, which would naturally lead to the question of who made the final decisions for running the estate and which pater familias (brother) was legally responsible for the estate' Presuming that suggestions of not splitting up estates was the custom for majority of Roman families, then a system that favoured one brother over the other is the most likely concept. It would then follow that not all men who were sui iris, and a pater were entitled to the title of pater familias and would then follow that not all paters had the full economic rights of patria potestas. Therefore it can be seen that the power of the Roman father or patria potestas encompassed both the public and private lives of his children and extended to the responsibility of estate or property. The legal definitions and concepts, although an attempt by Romans to solve cultural or social issues, appears to be applied randomly. A pater had the right to kill, demand divorce or provide peculum or not but there is very little evidence to suggest that fathers took the extreme measure of mortal punishment on their adult sons. However patria potesta appeared to be an essential tool in persuading and influencing, predominantly sons and their actions in the public domain, if in fact a pater had full economic rights himself. Richard. P. Saller, ‘Pater Familias, Mater Familias and the Gendered Semantics of the Roman Household,’ Classical Philology Vol 94 No.2 (1999) p.186. 18 Ibid. P 191. 17 Bibliography Ancient Sources Cicero Pro Balbo 28 Livy Histories 2.3.1-5.10; 2.41.10; 39.14.4-18.9 Sallurst Catilinarian Conspiracy 39.5 Valerius Maximus Memorable Doings and Sayings 6.1.5 Modern Sources Crook.J, Patria Potestas, Classical Quarterly, new series, 17.1 (1967) p.113-122 Lacy.W.K ‘Patria Potestas’ in B.Rawson, ed., The Family in Ancient Rome. New Perspectives, London 1986, p 121-127. Saller. R.P, ‘Pater Familias, Mater Familias and the gendered Semantics of the Roman Household,’ Classical Philology Vol 94 No.2 (1999) p.186Saller.R.P, ‘Patria potestas and the stereotype of the Roman family,’ Continuity and Change 1 (1986) R.Westbrook, ‘Vitae Nescisque Potestas, Historia 48.2 (1999) p.208. Ulpian 45.8.2 cited in R.Westbrook, ‘Vitae Nescisque Potestas, Historia 48.2 (1999) p.206