Content deleted Content added
Line 10: The Roman household was conceived of as an economic and juridical unit or estate: ''familia'' originally meant the group of the ''famuli'' (the ''servi'' the slaves of a rural estate) living under the same roof. That meaning later expanded to indicate the ''familia'' as the basic Roman [[social unit]], which might include the ''[[domus]]'' (house or home) but was legally distinct from it: a ''familia'' might own one or several homes. All members and properties of a ''familia'' were subject to the authority of a ''pater familias'': his legal, social and religious position defined ''familia'' as a microcosm of the Roman state.<ref>Frier ''et al.'', 18–20, for ''familia'' case-law definitions ([[Ulpian]]) and relations during and before the Imperial period. Limited preview available via Google Books [https://books.google.com/books?id=f19bw1D9s6gC&pg=PA3]</ref> In Roman law, the ''[[potestas]]'' of the ''pater familias'' was official but distinct from that of magistrates. Only a [[Roman citizen]] held the [[status in Roman legal system|status]] of ''pater familias'', and there could be only one holder of that office within a household. He was responsible for its well-being, reputation and legal and moral propriety. The entire ''familia'' was expected to adhere to the core principles and laws of the [[Twelve Tables]], which the ''pater familias'' had a duty to exemplify, enjoin and, if necessary, enforce, so within the ''familia'' Republican law and tradition (''mos majorum'') allowed him powers of life and death (''vitae necisque potestas''). He was also obliged to observe the constraints imposed by Roman custom and law on all ''potestas''. His decisions should be obtained through counsel, consultation and consent within the ''familia'', which were decisions by committee (''consilium''). The family ''consilia'' probably involved the most senior members of his own household, especially his wife, and, if necessary, his peers and seniors within his extended clan (''gens'').<ref>Parkin & Pomeroy, 72–80. Limited preview available via Google Books [https://books.google.com/books?id=qOQtR27nerkC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=Ulpian+on+the+edict+familia&source=bl&ots=2mxoyB0_vk&sig=oX9WBivILy44ZJX6zBnobVBkL4A&hl=en&ei=ksu7SuEkkJmMB437kbYL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=Ulpian%20on%20the%20edict%20familia&f=false] (accessed 24 September 2009)</ref> [[Augustus]]'s legislation on [[Lex Julia#Moral legislation of Augustus|the morality of marriage]] co-opted the traditional ''potestas'' of the ''pater familias''. Augustus was not only Rome's ''princeps'' but also its father (''pater patriae''). As such, he was responsible for the entire Roman ''familia''. Rome's survival required that citizens produce children. That could not be left to individual conscience. The falling birth rate was considered a marker of degeneracy and self-indulgence, particularly among the elite, who were supposed to set an example. ''[[Lex Julia]] maritandis ordinibus'' compelled marriage upon men and women within specified age ranges and remarriage on the divorced and bereaved within certain time limits. The ''[[Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis]]'' severely penalised adulterous wives and any husbands who tolerated such behaviour. The ''[[Lex Papia Poppaea]]'' extended and modified the laws in relation to intermarriage between social classes and inheritance. Compliance was rewarded and exceptional public duty brought exemption, but dictatorial compulsion was deeply unpopular and quite impractical. The laws were later softened in theory and practise, but the imperial ''[[Executive Magistrates of the Roman Empire|quaestio perpetua]]'' remained. Its public magistrates now legally over-rode the traditional rights of the family ''concilium'' and ''pater familias''. The principate shows a clear trend towards the erosion of individual ''patria potestas'' and the increasing intrusion of the state into the juridical and executive independence of the ''familia'' under its ''pater''.<ref>Galinsky, 130–2. Augustus couched the changes and similar ones as a restoration of traditional values. In one debate, he reiterated a "misogynistic" address of 131 BCE by the [[Roman censor|censor]] [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus|Metellus Macedonicus]] on marriage as necessary to Rome's survival. Limited preview via Google Books: [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ejwhh6cXwoQC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=Galinsky+lex+Iulia+de+maritandis&source=bl&ots=9jIiYG5eNP&sig=OHcSq1A_uY3UVUZV2XgNcxxc4IM&hl=en&ei=V8fASp_1G8_b-Qbvma2kAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false]</ref> | |||