FATHER-SON
5'
FATHER-SON
R
OmanfamilY relations were surprisinglyflexible given the s ety's close monitoring ofthe power and significance of a ROJ father in both hisimmediate family and in his extended clan. In tlí~ the pateifamiliashad the ultimate power oflife and death Over chil< still under his authority, as stories of fathers calling for the ex'ecutiol
cowardIyor disloyalsonsin the Roman past attest:I In practice, h( ever, the authority of the Roman father was hardIy limitless, but0 circumscribed by significant restrictions, both legal and social.2 M, over, an individual father might face competition for authority.{1i a younger generation from men in other categories of fatherhool father-in-law, for example, could wield a tremendous amount ofit ence, especially ifhe were high-ranking. The practice of fosterage also widespread, whereby a son couldbe raised or mentored b~
1
E.g., Lucius Junius Brutus, the first consul, executing his sons for plotting to reSI the monarchy; see Hanson 1999, 26-27; Eyben 1991, 121-124. Shaw 2001 discuss the background and rhetorical nature of the stories. Eyben 199 I cites evidence of tÍie ' father's concern for his children, as opposed to steely overlordship. On the po~sible connection between patriarchal family structures and patriarchal political institutions? see Lacey 1986. On the survival of the right of patria potestas, at least rhetorically,!see Arjava 1998. Saller and Shaw 1984, 136-137 note the absence of commemorations of senior patriarclial figures in tombstones. Saller 1987, 32-33 notes that a large majority of adult men and women would have been sui iuris, given relatively shorter life expectancíes. Saller 1991a and Saller 1994, II4-132 defines the power of patria potestas and gauges its application in
practice as opposed to theory. Slater 1988 demonstrates how Terence's Hecyra subverts the ethic of deference to the pateifamilias. Plescia 1976 argues that the challenge and erosion of patriarchal authority by younger generations precipitated the disorder of the late Republic. 126
~,
simply linked informally to, a surrqgate father figure, usually a prominent social ally of an older generation.3 Also, one's birth father could cede authority to a new adoptive father to whom a Roman son could be given "in exchange" for the social, financial, or political clout that the new father could offer.4 Under adoptio, the transference of a son from the biological to the adoptive was negotiated by the two fathers; under adrogatio,the son himself, ifhe wassui iuris, madeiithe decision to join another family.5 Adoptions couldoccur within an exten~d family, to bringdistant cousins closer in ~~lation or to bring later gynerations closer in time; they could occur among in-Iaws (adfines)in order to reinforce dxisting marriage alliances. In all of these cases, the adoptee wO]..1ld, have been an adolescent or older: if the motivations for adoption were to protect an estate or to make a social alliance, it stands to re;lson that, given the low survivalrttes ofchildhood diseases in antiquity, a grown son was much more valuable than an infant.6 In that the adoptee was meant to assist in building a relationship between two groups, he tooküna completely new identity comprised ofboth families, a.change that was reflected by a new, double name in which the birth name was demoted to an adjectiveand tacked onto the name of the adopting fathe~.7 Famously, Gaius Octavius became Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Aemilius Paullus, the victor over Perseus and the Macedonians at the Battle of Pydna in 167 BCE,gave away two ,of his sons in adoption for multiple reasons. First, according to Livy, he had remarried and had had two additiónal sons from the union, and so giving away sons in adoption helped to preserve his estate by reducing Jhe number of beneficiaries.8 Moreover, the sons, helped to link the Aemilii with other prominent families: one went to Quintus Fabius Maximus 3 Corbier 2000 discusses the differences between adoption 1998, II4-208. 4 Corbier
1991a and 1991b; Gardner 2000. Hopkins
and fosterage. See also Gardner
1983, 49 points out that over a two-
hundred-year period (249-50 BCE), f¡fteen, or 4 percent, of consuls had been adopted. 5 Corbier 1991a, 63-'76; Gardner 1998, 126-132. 6 Cf. Gardner 1998, 148 and 165. 7 On narning strategies and deviations &om the model, see Salomies 2000. On the significance ofthe nomen designating the all-important male line, see Saller 1991b, 31-32. See also Corbier 1991 a, 69. 8 Livy, 45.41.12; cf. Plut. Aem. 5.5. 127