Social Links
Qui sunt?
Ius Necandi: The Role of Pater Familias
In some of our classes, we broke off into groups in order to create a skit that would enact a iudicium domesticum, or a family assembly that had to convene to resolve a serious family matter.
The scenario for our skit was a son who had stolen a sum of money from a neighbor’s house – the students were to create a skit that would reflect each family member’s role in the decision of what to do to resolve the problem.
A lot of the skits seemed to deal with punishing the son with an execution from the pater familias. Obviously, this would have been chosen by our students as a way to heighten the drama, but the fact of the matter is although a pater familias had power of life and death (ius necandi) over his household members, it was not typically used.
Most of these cases were found in mythology, and as such the general feeling from the Romans was not one of apathy but instead they would have been abhorred by a father killing his children – no matter the situation. Patricide also was not typically accepted by the Romans.
There are practical reasons for this, too. As a married couple got older, their children would provide support for their lifestyle – killing their children meant damaging their own future prospects as well. There was also the concept of pietas, which guided a pater familias in running his household. Pietas is a social force that compels good Romans to do what is best for the group – it is the notion of one’s duty, to look beyond the self and do what is good for the common good. A Roman pater familias wanted his family to thrive and grow, much like small business owners dream of creating a corporate empire themselves that would transcend generations.
For this very reason, there was little incentive for a pater familias to execute his children. In fact, it was pretty much the opposite for the Romans who actually leaned more towards spoiling their children, which we see in Cicero and his letters to his own son. Cicero was always worrying about Marcus junior’s education and whether or not Cicero himself raised him right. This was steered by his pietas, that Roman social force that propelled a strong familial connection among its citizens. This, naturally, made sons less likely to do the kinds of things that would drive a father to kill him in the first place.
Comments
2 Responses to “Ius Necandi: The Role of Pater Familias”
Leave a Reply
Polls
Loading ...
I think you are confused. Patricide is the act of killing your father, which was definitely frowned upon by the Romans. However, patricide has nothing to do with a father killing his children.
Filicide is the act of killing one’s own child and was not frowned upon by the Romans. For example, Antonia Minor famously starved her daughter, Livilla, to death after it was revealed she’d had an affair with the disgraced Praetorian Prefect, Sejanus, and poisoned her husband, Drusus Minor (son of Tiberius). The emperor Augustus banished his daughter Julia to die in exile for “immoral behavior” and sent orders to have his already exiled grandson, Posthumous Agrippa, beheaded upon his own death (so as he wouldn’t threaten the legitimacy of the rule of Tiberius).
In fact, the right of “exposure” was often employed by the “pater familias”. Every baby born in Rome was presented to his father for acceptance. If the baby was deformed or weak or if the father had any doubts as to whether or not he was really the father, the child was left on the steps of a pagan temple to be eaten by stray dogs. Children were also exposed if they were unfortunate enough to be born on a “black day” (i.e. days of national tragedy like the death of Julius or Augustus Caesar). Parents were actually encouraged to expose children born on those days to avert whatever displeasure they might receive from the gods.
Thanks for clarifying.
I made a typo and that should have read “Patricide also was not typically…”. I have made the change. My contention would be that there was some reserve about putting children to death. There are historical instances, which you point out, but it was not typical for Romans to put children to death as the difficulties of child birth and the need to produce an heir would probably make it necessary to keep children alive as potential heirs. In cases of extreme behavior, there were also equally extreme measures taken. Filicide would have been supported and protected under Roman law, no doubt and that is something we discussed, but it doesn’t seem to me to be something that was employed regularly. If that is the case, as you suggest, I would like to learn more about that as that would definitely provide a completely different perspective for my students. Thanks again for the comment though – very insightful!