Roman Public Life

by A. H. J. Greenidge

The family (familia)[74] in its original and proper meaning is the aggregate of members of a household under a common head; this head was the paterfamilias—the only member of the household who possesses legal rights.

The two ideas underlying the Roman conception of the family are those of unity and power, and both are singularly perfect. The former is attained, and the latter exercised, by the head. It is through him alone that the family is a person; and the authority he wields over the members subordinated to his will is called potestas.[75] The power over the children is described as patria potestas, as over the slave it is dominica. The two do not differ legally; there is only a difference of ethical signification. Under this potestas fall, firstly, the children, both sons and daughters; secondly, the descendants of these children; thirdly, the wife united to her lord by a form of marriage which makes her a member of the family; fourthly, the wives of the sons and grandsons who have entered the familia by a similar binding form of marriage. There is a complete absence of independent rights amongst these members of the household. As to the wife, any property that she might be possessed of, or which she acquired, passed absolutely into the power of her husband. He was responsible for her conduct and possessed the right of moderate chastisement. Severer punishment for wrongs to the household required the support of the family council. No legal action might be brought by the woman against her lord, for they were not two personalities, but one. He might divorce her on good grounds,[76] but if she were married under a form which subjected her to his power, she had no legal means of freeing herself from his tyrannous rule. Her position is that of a daughter and she inherits equally with her children. The decision as to whether the child of the marriage was to be reared (liberi susceptio) belonged to the father, but was, in the interest of the state, subjected at an early period to certain modifications. The “laws of Romulus”—that is, the early pontifical law—enjoined the rearing of every male child and of the first-born of the females; the exposure of offspring was to receive the assent of five neighbours,[77] and disobedience of these canons was to be visited with severe penalties on the parent who neglected the welfare of the state. The children and their descendants are never released from the absolute rule of the father as long as he lives. They cannot own property; for all that they acquire belongs to the common stock and is at the disposal of the head of the family. At best the father might permit the son, as he might permit the slave, to employ his own earnings for his own use. This is the peculium. Yet the grant is a mere concession, and one which may be withdrawn at any moment. If the son dies it lapses to the father; if the father dies it falls to the heir.

The child, as having no property, cannot give satisfaction for wrongs which he has committed. He is regarded as irresponsible, and responsibility for his conduct devolved on the father, who might either give compensation to the injured man, or surrender the delinquent for him to visit with his vengeance, or to use as a means of working out the damage (noxae deditio);[78] in the latter case the child becomes for ever the property of another. The father might sell him; if beyond the limits of the country, the son becomes a slave; if within the limits, he is one in private though not in public law (in causa mancipii), and exchanges servitude to the father for that to the purchaser. In an age which recognised no free contract of labour, the sale of the son was a means of putting him out to business.[79] The injunction of the Twelve Tables (perhaps the recognition of a custom far earlier than this law) that the thrice-repeated sale of a son involved loss of the patria potestas,[80] was an attempt to put an end to an inhuman traffic. The child as a thing might be stolen or detained, and as such be the object of recovery. In this case the father “vindicates” him as he would a chattel or a beast that had strayed from the homestead.[81]

The father might scourge or imprison his child,[82] even put him to death. The formula employed in adrogation (the procedure by which a man puts himself into the paternal power of another) shows that the jus vitae necisque was the most distinctive aspect of the patria potestas.[83] It was a power never questioned throughout the whole of Republican history, and which received no legal limitations until the time of the Middle Empire.[84] Sometimes it was employed as a means of saving the honour of the family, and there are instances of the son guilty of theft, the daughter of unchastity, being thus put to death;[85] sometimes it was enforced in the interest of the state to punish a public crime.[86]

Although law is in a sense an outline of life, it would be very misleading to fill up the content of Roman private life by analogy with this harsh outline. Like most of the theory of Roman law it had little correspondence with the facts; and this non-correspondence of fact and theory is the source of the strength and the beauty of Roman family life. If legal obligations do not exist between husband and wife, father and child, their place, in a civilised community, must be taken by moral obligations; and the very absence of legal sanctions will make these moral bonds peculiarly strong. It was so with the Roman family. It was an isolated, self-existent unit. The members clung closely to one another and to their head. The power of the father—the source of the unity of the household—fostered the devotion to the hearth, the love of home, which is such a distinctive attribute of the Roman. It created the belief that the members of the household, owing allegiance to a common chief, should act loyally by one another in all the relations of life, and loyalty to a living head begat loyalty to his predecessors; traditions of this union as persisting under the rule of a long line of deceased ancestors, account for the hereditary policy of Roman houses—the championship of principles advocated for centuries by such clans as the Valerii, the Porcii, and the Claudii.

The moral influence on the pater was also great. He defends, not his own selfish rights, but the rights of a corporation dependent on him; “self-help” is the essence of the principles of early Roman law. In private matters the authority of the state is weak, that of the individual strong. The rule of the Roman father was the benevolent despotism that embraces many within the sphere of its despotic interests, that forces others to observe its rights because its interests are not personal, that produces a deep sense of moral and religious responsibility towards the weak, a stern unyielding attitude towards the man who would infringe upon their rights. The only “individual” known to Roman law is the paterfamilias, but his was a glorified individuality, which, through its rule over the family, gathered strength to rule the world.

If it be thought that the loss of character must have been proportionally great in the case of the dependent members of the household, it must be remembered that the patria potestas is, for the individual, a transitory condition of things. Each subject member is preparing himself to be a pater in his own right. With the death of the existing head, all the hitherto dependent members are freed from the potestas; each forms a familia of his own; even his grandchildren by predeceased sons become heads of houses; the daughters are also freed from power, although, out of deference to the weakness of the sex, they are still under guardianship (tutela).[87] The family splits up into a number of familiae, and none of these is of more importance than the other. For the evils of primogeniture were unknown to Roman law. No hereditary caste based on the accident of birth was ever formed; and when we find an aristocracy of birth arising, it is the fittest son who can succeed his father in political office; for the bulk of the property, on which political influence was based, has not passed into the hands of some incapable elder brother.

But, apart from the moral checks on the authority of the father, which the absence of legal restraints made peculiarly strong, the civil law, public opinion, and the positive morality which found expression through certain religious or semi-religious organs, did impose certain restraints on a possible abuse of power. If the father is a lunatic (furiosus) he is, with his property, put under the care of his next of kin;[88] if he is wasteful (prodigus) and is squandering the property, of which (though legally it is his own) he is regarded only as the trustee, he is debarred from all commercial relations (commercium)[89] and prohibited from disposing of goods of which he is an unworthy administrator.

A very real customary control, one not actually enjoined by the civil law, but enforced by the powerful sovereign, which the Romans called the custom of their ancestors (mos majorum), was the obligation incumbent on the father of consulting a council of relatives (consilium domesticum) before taking any extreme step with respect to the members of his family. This was never limited to the agnatic circle; it admitted blood relations and relatives by marriage, while personal friends outside the family might be summoned as well.[90] Any severe punishment of a child and the divorce of a wife had to be submitted to the judgment of this assembly. How strong the sentiment in favour of this procedure was may be judged from the fact that in later times we find the censor (in Republican times the personal exponent of the moral sense of the community) degrading a senator who had divorced his wife without taking advice of the family council.[91] The sentiment was but one expression of the principle which runs through the whole of Roman life, that no man should act in an important matter without taking counsel of those best qualified to give it.

Certain extreme abuses of the paternal power were prohibited by religious law (fas), which in such cases enjoins capital penalties. By a supposed law of Romulus, a man who sells his wife is to be sacrificed to the infernal gods; if he divorces her without due cause, half of his property is to be confiscated to his wife and half to the goddess Ceres.[92] With the secularisation of Roman law such penalties disappeared, and it is questionable whether they often required enforcement,[93] for such religious bans are mainly the expression of a strong moral sentiment.