Patria Potestas

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 11:23:12 -0400
From: David Meadows <g8926133@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject: RE: Pater est Rex

Initial thoughts on Elli Elliot's query (more will follow when I recheck Harris). Yes there is a discrepancy, but I am unsure of the significance of that discrepancy. The problem as I see it comes later, with Augustus' marriag legislation: in that legislation, the power was granted to a father to kill a daughter whom he discovered in flagrante delicto with a paramour. Why would such a 'right' be necessary if the father already had the power to kill a daughter because of patria potestas? Husbands were not given any such right, but if they did kill a paramour or the wife, they would get a less harsh punishment. Perhaps the innovation was allowing the father the right to kill without having to call a consilium.

As for whether patria potestas is connected with concern for legitimacy of the family line, this does seem to me to be the case, but I have problems with that view as well. Instead of killing the daughter, why not simply expose the child (as Claudius did with the illegitimate son of one of his wives)? It seems to me that killing daughters for having an illegitimate child goes beyond notions of legitimacy into the realm of honour and family pride; perhaps there is something religious lying behind it as well (perhaps the genius would be offended by an 'intruder').

More to follow ...

.................................................................
David Meadows G8926133@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca .
Department of Classics david.meadows@canrem.com .
McMaster University .
Hamilton, Ontario Libertas inaestimabilis res est .
CANADA .
.................................................................

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:58:12 -0500
Subj: RE: Pater est Rex

Continuing thoughts on Harris' contentions vis a vis patria potestas as it applies to daughters. I was unable to get a copy of the article, but I do recall the three cases. 1) Verginia -- Verginius is said to have killed his daughter rather than have her be claimed as the slave of Appius Claudius the decemvir; this is one of those legendary stories from Rome's fabled past and is one of a series of examples of `Claudian arrogance'. I don't think anyone would lend it much credence. The other two cases are known to us only via Valerius Maximus: 6.1.6 a P. Atilius Philiscus apparently killed his daughter for stuprum (Atilius was a freedman). 6.1.3 Pontius Aufidianus killed his daughter for having sexual relations with her paedagogus (whether voluntarily or involuntarily is not made clear). Both cases seem to come from the late Republic. Both cases might also be considered untrustworthy because of the source, but if true, it is significant that in both cases the woman has had intercourse with someone of lesser status. Stuprum, e.g., is illicit sexual intercourse by a male with a widow or woman of higher status -- ipso facto Atilius' daughter must have been having relations with someone of lower status. Aufidianus' daughter was having relations with a paedagogus, who was obviously a slave [Valerius Maximus doesn't say so, but a Roman would have recognized that the paramours in both cases likely would have suffered death as well]. To reiterate the point I made earlier, in all these cases there might have been concern about illegitimacy (sorry, that doesn't apply to Verginia), but the fathers did not wait to find out if, in fact, the daughter was pregnant. Family honour seems to be a primary concern -- Atilius, a freedman, gives his daughter the gift of full Roman citizenship and she sullies that reputation -- Aufidianus, an eques, at a time when the equestrians seems to be becoming concious of their identity as a group finds his daughter with a slave -- Verginius, a noble, is about to have his daughter claimed as a slave. There's more (or less) than legitimacy of bloodlines at stake here -- one's fama meant a lot at Rome.