Was the power of fathers over wives, children and slaves absolute?

A Roman father would be given the title of pater familias, meaning head of household and family. This title, given to any male Roman citizen who was “sui iuris”1, 'under his own power,' gave the pater familias certain legal powers over his familias, a word which “covered every member of the household subject to the power of the father...children, slaves and...the wife”2. With respect to these legal rights, the word 'absolute' can be defined as unrestricted or unlimited3. It is, however, important to bear in mind that, according to Plautus, “laws are subordinate to custom”4. The role of the pater familias was a long standing tradition and due to this there were certain behavourial expectations that were not necessarily laid out in Roman law. It was this mixture of custom and law that gave the head of the household such power. It is to be determined, however, whether the same customs and laws also restricted and limited this power.

Tradition dictates that the fist wives of Rome were essentially kidnapped and raped5. With such a precedent set, it is no wonder the pater familias could seem to have unrestricted power over their wives. It also seems that society often encouraged men to be strict with their wives. Roman anecdotes, used to project the model relationship between spouses, told of Egnatius Metellus, who “beat his wife to death because she had drunk some wine”6, and Gaius Sulpicius Gallus, who “divorced his wife because he had caught her outdoors with her head uncovered”7. It is telling that, despite the fact that these honour killings were illegal, they were being told in a positive way. The fact that such stories were told in a positive way shows Roman custom encouraged husbands to exercise power over their wives by punishing them harshly when they stepped out of line.

Husbands also had legal power over their wives, varying depending on the type of marriage they had. A Roman marriage could be cum or sine manus . Traditionally during the ceremony for a cum manus marriage, a woman would ask her husband, “Do you wish to be my paterfamilias?”8 This signified the wife being placed under the legal control of the husband and his patria potestas as she legally became a member of his family. A woman in a cum manus marriage had the title of mater familias. Although the title is parrallel to its male counterpart, the similarity ends there. The title gave no added power to the wife and by the Empire, the word was synomonous with wife9. The wife was subject to her husband's power of life and death and all her property and inheritance would belong to him. He only had to return her dowry in the event of a divorce10. Moreover, a woman could not instigate a divorce. In this way, a cum manus marriage gave the pater familias complete control over his wife and her financial assets.

In a sine manus marriage, however, the wife legally remained a member of her father's family, staying under his potestas. Consequently she remained independent from her husband and retained her hereditary rights11. Therefore the husband's power over his wife was severly limited. Although a sine manus marriage meant the wife was still under the power of her father, this was less burdensome as it was likely her father would die sooner than her husband, leaving her independent earlier than in a cum manus marriage.
Whatever the marriage, however, the customs of Roman society proved to be a limiting factor in how much power the husband had over his wife. By the late Republic, regardless of what kind of marriage a woman had, an upper-class Roman matron enjoyed a fair amount of independence and often kept control of her own property12. These changes in society made a husband exercising absolute power over his wife unusual and applied peer pressure, encouraging men to give their wives the independence that was becoming the norm.

From birth, a child fell under the potestas of the pater. The extent of a father's power over his offspring can be seen in the ius vitae necisque. This law gave a father the power to decide whether his child lived or died. The power of life or death was an established legal right, as can be seen by the use of the word “ius” and its inclusion in the Twelve Tables13. If the pater familias decided to exercise his power of life and death over his children, even his wife “was powerless to protest the infantcide” even “of a legitimate and healthy child”14. Consequently, the father's power was so great that he could decide the fate of his children.Yet although the pater had the legal right to exercise capital punishment, it appears that by late Antiquity this right was considered obsolete. Custom limited the father's power, dictating that it was proper to verbally scold disobedient children, or at most, give a beating15. Furthermore, the decision to kill one of his children was not made solely by the pater. Before the child could be condemned to death, the father had to submit his decision to the family council and have it approved.

For Roman children “everything they acquired belonged to their pater familias”16. This could have great economic impact on young adults in upper or middle classes still in potestate. Often, their only form of income was inherited property and even if they started a business, the initial capital required would come from property17. Therefore, the pater would grant those under his potestas an amount of money known as a peculium. This amount could range from pusilla pecunia18, 'pocket money', to enough to run a business. Not only did the father control how much money his sons received, he could also demand it back at any time, showing his absolute power. The father could use this peculium to his advantage by getting his sons or trusted slaves to run his business for him19. Whatever profit was made by them through the business would belong to the father. It is clear that this system gave the pater complete economic control over his children, leaving them financially at his mercy.

For Roman daughters, fathers had control over the most important event of their lives. Marriage occurred at a young age and was meant to benefit the family rather than the individual20. Therefore it was practise for fathers to arrange marriages. Even if the father did not choose the husband, a daughter under his potestas had to receive his consent before she could marry. Although the daughter's consent was also necessary, she could only refuse if her father's choice was seen to be “morally unfit”21. A daughter in an unhappy marriage was even more dependent on her father's power. In order to divorce her husband, a daughter would require her father's economic support. Without his support, she would be unable to survive in society. Moreover, a daughter was completely powerless to resist if her father demanded she had a divorce22. Clearly, a father's power over his daughter was almost unlimited, as he had the power to both orchestrate and dissolve marriages.

Society, however, did limit a father's rights when it came to his daughter's marriage. Although mothers and daughters did not have the right to choose a husband, in practise often their preferences were indulged, for example Cicero's daughter Tullia, who, with her father away, found her own husband, aided by her mother23. Moreover, it was presumed that a father's consent was given unless he explicitly refused24. Therefore a daughters marriage was not completely out of her control as society did restrict a father's power.

Furthermore, the pater familias' power did not expire when his children reached a particular age or established independent lives and households. Instead, patria potestas was held by the eldest male of the household until death, when it was passed to his successor. Consequently, it possible for grandfathers and high ranking officials of Rome to still be under their fathers' power25. Therefore, clearly a father's power over his children was not limited by age or circumstance. This, however, was not often a constriction on the children as Roman men usually married late and died early. In fact, “less than half of [Roman citizens] had a surviving pater when they reached...twenty five”26 In some circumstances, however, even after his death, a father could exercise his patria potestas. If the pater familias put in his will that he wanted a posthumous child to be exposed, the family had to comply. This shows how the father's power over his children was respected even after his passing.

There were members of the familias who were not related to the pater familias. These members included the slaves who worked for the family. As members of the household, the slaves fell under the pater familias' patria potestas. In some areas this gave them the same rights over their lives as the offspring of the pater. All the property of slaves belonged to the pater familias and they were under his ius vitae necisque. Similarly, just as offspring could be emancipated by their father, slaves could receive manumission. The only person entitled to decide whether a slave should be manumitted was the slave's legal owner. Furthermore, just like the children of the household, slaves could still be affected by the pater familias' potestas even after his death. A slave owner could forbid a slave to be manumitted in his will, either for a punishment or because the slave was carrying out a continuous task27. Just like the children of the household, slaves were subordinate to the pater familias' power, even after being freed.

Slaves, however, had even less control over their lives than the children of the household. An owner could give his slave whatever name he chose28. This and other such laws contributed to the view of slaves as objects rather than people. Even after receiving manumission, a freedman was not independent from the pater familias from whom he had belonged. A freedman would retain the name of the family he had worked for, showing his connection to the family and that to some extent he was still under the power of his owner29. A freedman was expected to carry out both social and economic obligations and if he behaved insolently or did not show due gratitude, he would be punished30. Consequently, the owner's power was not limited by the length of his ownership. The power an owner held over his slaves was greater than the power he held over his children. This was due to the slaves having fewer legal rights and the image society projected of slaves being objects not people.

Despite legally being property in the absolute control of their owner, slaves were human beings and therefore had certain rights. These rights restricted the owner's behaviour towards their slaves. For example, owners were not allowed to treat their “slaves with excessive and unreasonable brutality” and owners were forced to sell their slaves if their treatment was found to be too cruel. Furthermore, although a freedman would have obligations towards his ex-master, it was illegal for these obligations to be economically or physically damaging to the way of life the freedman wanted to follow.31 These rights limited an owner's power over his slaves and freedmen. Although torture was sometimes used against slaves at times when the truth was necessary, custom dictated that “torture against slaves should be employed as a last resort”32. Custom also limited a pater's behaviour towards his slaves. It is clear through Roman texts that, although slaves could be exploited, this treatment was met with disgust33. The portrayal of this behaviour in a negative light may have persuaded owners to alter their own conduct towards their slaves.

It is obvious that the pater familias certainly had a high level of control over every member of his household. He had the ability to dictate all aspects of their lives, including punishment, death, marriage, business and freedom. It would be, however, incorrect to say this power was absolute or unlimited. As the Republic progressed, more laws were introduced to protect the rights of wives, children and slaves. Laws did not only limit the power of the pater familias- custom and society also played its part. Trends and changes in society urged the head of the household to restrict his power over his family and persuaded him to behave in a more liberal manner towards them. For example, during the Late Republic there was a transition from cum manus marriages to sine manus marriages as women desired more freedom34. Although in many cases, the father still legally had certain rights, such as the right of life and death over his familias, as time went on society viewed it as more and more distasteful to utilise them. Therefore, it can be said that the power of fathers over wives, children and slaves was great but in no way absolute as a blend of law and custom ensured that it was limited.

Bibliography

Arjava, A., 'Paternal Power in Late Antiquity', The Journal of Roman Studies Vol.88, pp.147- 165, London, 1998

Bradley K., Slavery and Society at Rome, Cambridge, 1994

Bierkan, A.T., 'Marriage in Roman Law', The Yale Law Journal Vol. 16, pp. 303-327 ,Yale, 1907

Cantarella, E., 'Fathers and Sons in Rome', The Classical World Vol.96, pp.281-298, Wayne, Pennsylvania, 2003

Crook, J., 'Patria Potestas', The Classical Quarterly Vol.17, pp.113-122, Cambridge, 1967

Luce, T.J., 'Livy's Ab Urbe Condita', Oxford, 1998

Saller, R.P, 'Men's Age at Marriage and Its Consequences in the Roman Family', Classical Philology Vol.82, pp. 21-34, Chicago, 1987

Saller, R.P., 'Pater Familias, Mater Familias and the Gendered Semantics of the Roman Household', Classical Philology Vol. 94, pp. 182-197, Chicago, 1999

Shaw, B.D., 'Raising and Killing Children: Two Roman Myths', Mnemosyne Vol.54, pp.31-77 Leiden, The Netherlands, 2001

Shumway, E.S., 'Freedom and Slavery in Roman Law', The American Law Register Vol. 49, Pennsylvania, 1901

Skelter, J., Diodorus Siculus' Bibliotheca Historica, Oxford, 1956

Temin, P., 'The Labour Market of the Early Roman Empire', The Journal of Interdisciplinary History Vol. 34, pp.513-538, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2004

Wardle, D., 'Valerius Maximus' Memorable Deeds and Sayings', Gloucestershire, 1998