Since I know you are dying to find out what I learned from lesson one, I am going to go ahead and share my submission (sans complete citations, to discourage you from plagiarism, which I know is probably a struggle for you all). ENJOY.
If
Dixon made any one thing clear in Chapter 1, it was that the historiography of
the family, especially the Roman family, is long and complicated. Since the
documents and artifacts used to determine the compilation and social importance
of families in the pre-BC and early AD centuries are usually legal or artistic
(drama, media arts, etc.), scholars create their own definitions of the family
based on personal interpretation and related studies, including sociology and
biology. In Dixon’s own words, “Historians of the family… now acknowledge that
it is a mistake to assign a single family form to any period of history." This means that a complete list of the definitions of the historic family would
be both A) highly varied due to scholarly difference and perception of primary
sources, and B) numerous another time over because of the number of different
types of families in any given age. While Dixon does not attempt to create a
list of all historic families, she does reflect on some past definitions, and
then creates a basic but firm definition of the Roman family. For example, in
pre-WWII studies, a large focus in family studies was placed on the idea that
the European races were created and sustained by the social custom of creating
families. In the twentieth century, it was also determined that the nuclear
family has perhaps been the social norm since pre-historic times. Certain
historians fought against this assumption, citing the impermanence and gray
matter of census records to say that nuclear families could not have
represented a majority of households. Whether or not “nuclear” is a good
descriptor of most Roman families, it has been determined using various
population and family records that most Roman families could not have been
tri-generational, simply because life expectancy was so short. Short life
expectancy also affected the length and number of marriages a man or woman
might have (remarriage was common), and the number of families a child could be
associated with. Although Roman slaves and soldiers were not legally
allowed to form marriage unions, it appears that they formed de facto unions,
which were sometimes legalized as the members became free. Slaves are also
occasionally considered to be members of the family that owned them; boarders
and apprentices are also faux-relatives that could be listed as members of a
household although not technically kin to the pater familias. Dixon also
points out, importantly, that Romans idealized families and associated morality
with just parents, honorable children, compassionate kinship relations, etc.
Thus we can assume that Romans strove to create comfortable atmospheres within
their families, demanding respect for elders and nurture for dependent
members—both the elderly and young. The historic family is perhaps as hard to
define as the modern family, but it is clear that social tendencies to create
nuclear homes based on blood and marriage relationships to form “an economic
unit” have been a part of human culture for much longer than the relationships
themselves have been studied.
The
pater familias was the head of the Roman household and the cornerstone of Roman
society. A man became his own pater familias when released from the familia of
his father, which usually happened on the father’s death. Therefore, it is
not requisite that a man has his own wife and children to be a pater familias;
he must only be a free man, and the oldest man alive in his father’s family
line. If a pater familias was a father, he was usually the sole conductor of
their combined wealth and legal actions. The wife of a pater familias could
chose to enter her husband’s manus or stay in her father’s, which would
determine the location and use of her wealth; if she did not enter the
husband’s manus, even if the husband was a pater familias, he could not claim
her inheritance. The pater familias was responsible for the success of his
estate or domus, and was expected to rule over his house and family with
justice. Although it was legally acceptable for the Roman father to kill his
own children, there were also legal stipulations to that action that are
associated with patria potestas, or the designated powers of a pater familias. The patria potestas gave the pater familias his social significance, but
also limited his power. For instance, the sons or daughters of a pater familias
could only legally be married with the approval of their father. But, if a
pater familias died intestate, all of his children gained their own
independence. On the other hand, a pater familias could write a will and
go through a legal process to disinherit all of his kin, if he had a suitable
candidate to replace them with. A pater familias could also will his
dependents and his wife to have tutors (guardians) that would continue to
control their lives and property after the death of the pater familias.
Although the patria potestas of a pater familias were great, they were not
necessarily final. Sons and daughters of the pater familias (filiusfamilia and
filiafamilias) could be emancipated before the death of the pater familias, and
Roman widows could chose to remarry. The pater familias and his patria
potestas were not the most powerful parts of Roman society, but they certainly
controlled much more during their lifetimes than their dependent children and
wives.
Although
the blood and marriage relations of the Roman pater familias were an important
element of the familia, the actual estate and house of a familia represented as
much significance to a member of the familia as would a family name. In
fact, “Romans commonly spoke of the ‘house’ (domus) rather than the familia
when they wished to refer to the lineage or kinship unit." The house was
home for both kin and slaves, boarders, and apprentices, or other types of
non-relative guests (or in the case of slaves, property). For example, the
short life expectancy of adults and the complications of pregnancy and
childbirth lead historians to believe that wet nurses and babysitters would be
normal members of households. This ties back into the definition of the
Roman family, which often includes (especially thanks to census records) not
only kin but also any people living in a family home or on a family estate. The
relations between these people were strong for a variety of reasons: affection,
legality, necessity, and others would have demanded the cooperation of a Roman
household. For elite families, the importance of a Roman household was largely
tied up in income and prestige. An elite domus could be “the center of a huge
unit of production and consumption that constituted [a] city base,” or a more
simple country home. The household of a de facto union between slaves or
soldiers, on the other hand, is assumedly something created out of social
craving and tradition—there was no legal recognition of such marriages, no
privileges or rights (slave mothers and fathers had no claims to their
biological children, etc.), and no benefits such as dowries. In all such
houses, the pater familias reined supreme. In some cases, women of elite homes
wrote wills and controlled part of their personal wealth, although such wills
and power were hardly expected or legally recognized. By the second
century B.C., peasant families lost their income as the latifundia of the
wealthy took over the Italian countryside; thus slaves, part of elite domus’
despite their own lack of legal recognization, were more likely to be found in
the Roman households of country estates than free peasant families.
Although Roman households were expected to stand on their own two feet, wealth
and social class (as manifest in a given domus) determined the ultimate
importance of a familia and the range of power of its pater familias.
As
were all historic families, the Roman family was perhaps most importantly an
economic unit represented by monetary holdings and legal authority, which
functioned as a cog in the machine of economic and social society. A
familia had the potential to create wealth and connections to the elite class
through both industry and marriage. While the pater familias was definitely the
head of all such decisions, the Roman family was only able to function due to
the cooperation of wives and children (as well as slaves or other non-kin
members of a domus). Dixon states that the most primary function of a Roman
family was to create “soldiers and future taxpayers” for the state.
Through the practice of reproduction and the creation of a nuclear family, both
genes and culture are passed on to new generations, strengthening a
civilization. The well-known life cycle, as opposed to the unpredictable
life course of any human, dictated that adults would care or provide care for
their own children, and grown children would reciprocally care for aging
parents or other kin as needed. Although slaves were expected to do manual
or servile labor on an elite estate, they were also generally included in many
aspects of family life, including non-kin groupings and services such as
funeral commemoration. Blood and marriage members of a familia, along
with slaves or other employed non-kin members, worked together to contribute to
manage estates and train/apprentice other members of society. The Roman
family also worked to form a culturally important network of emotional support
for its members; pietas, or “family feeling” (loyalty, respect, generosity,
etc.) was a highly honored virtue that created a strong foundation for families
to grow upon. Families were a source of satisfaction and happiness, not
only worldly success. Although the Roman family was a “dynamic unit which
responded to particular [changes] of the life course,” it was also the most
common form of “social and physical reproduction… honor… economic subsistence,
and material and emotional support between family members."
While soldiers definitely outranked slaves on the Roman class scale, both types of men were limited to the amount of family they could create for themselves. The Roman slave was much more cut off from family, as it was almost impossible to identify his parents or other kin besides his mother—and even if a mother for a certain slave was known, there is a very small chance that they would ever share a life together, as slave children were often separated from their mothers at birth and neither would have legal claims to each other. Slaves did form de facto unions and families (inasmuch as was possible), and formed important relationships with free citizens (“between a slave nurse and her nurseling,” for example), but there were no laws to recognize or give rights to members of these relationships until late in the Roman period. Even then, ‘the law continued to take the side of the owner” of a slave, and “the law is not consistent in its viewpoint” when it comes to occasions of leniency granted to slave parents or children. What is most interesting, when considering slave families, is that there is evidence that owners displayed “compassion and [acknowledged] family ties among people who, stricto iure, had none." It is true, then, that the bonds of affection or respect created between slaves and their owners which, to some degree, made slaves a part of the domus and familia of their owners also came to fruition in the action of allowing slaves to form their own families. Soldiers, on the other hand, were normally “landless or [had] poor prospects,” but they were free, and thus entitled to recognition as being a member of a family. But, for a time, it was illegal for “soldiers beneath a certain rank… to marry during service." As there is evidence of slaves forming unions and having children within those unions, there is also evidence that soldiers made similar illegal families during their service. A problem unique to soldier families is that Roman soldiers often claimed foreign women as wives, and thus their children were illegitimate because marriages to foreigners (even if the soldier was legally able to marry) were not recognized under Roman law. Eventually, soldiers were allowed to write wills which dictated the inheritance of belongings “to people who were not qualified to be heirs or legatees of a normal Roman will, such as foreigners and the unmarried,” which pacified those who wanted to change the law regarding the strictures of foreigner-recognition. Some historians believe that soldiers were forbidden to marry by the state in the hopes that soldiers would form relations with foreigners and create illegitimate children that would seek citizenship by also enlisting in the army—thus creating a semi-permanent source of manpower. At any rate, it took many years to determine the structure of a Roman soldier’s family, and there is still much to be wanted in that section of Roman family history.
While soldiers definitely outranked slaves on the Roman class scale, both types of men were limited to the amount of family they could create for themselves. The Roman slave was much more cut off from family, as it was almost impossible to identify his parents or other kin besides his mother—and even if a mother for a certain slave was known, there is a very small chance that they would ever share a life together, as slave children were often separated from their mothers at birth and neither would have legal claims to each other. Slaves did form de facto unions and families (inasmuch as was possible), and formed important relationships with free citizens (“between a slave nurse and her nurseling,” for example), but there were no laws to recognize or give rights to members of these relationships until late in the Roman period. Even then, ‘the law continued to take the side of the owner” of a slave, and “the law is not consistent in its viewpoint” when it comes to occasions of leniency granted to slave parents or children. What is most interesting, when considering slave families, is that there is evidence that owners displayed “compassion and [acknowledged] family ties among people who, stricto iure, had none." It is true, then, that the bonds of affection or respect created between slaves and their owners which, to some degree, made slaves a part of the domus and familia of their owners also came to fruition in the action of allowing slaves to form their own families. Soldiers, on the other hand, were normally “landless or [had] poor prospects,” but they were free, and thus entitled to recognition as being a member of a family. But, for a time, it was illegal for “soldiers beneath a certain rank… to marry during service." As there is evidence of slaves forming unions and having children within those unions, there is also evidence that soldiers made similar illegal families during their service. A problem unique to soldier families is that Roman soldiers often claimed foreign women as wives, and thus their children were illegitimate because marriages to foreigners (even if the soldier was legally able to marry) were not recognized under Roman law. Eventually, soldiers were allowed to write wills which dictated the inheritance of belongings “to people who were not qualified to be heirs or legatees of a normal Roman will, such as foreigners and the unmarried,” which pacified those who wanted to change the law regarding the strictures of foreigner-recognition. Some historians believe that soldiers were forbidden to marry by the state in the hopes that soldiers would form relations with foreigners and create illegitimate children that would seek citizenship by also enlisting in the army—thus creating a semi-permanent source of manpower. At any rate, it took many years to determine the structure of a Roman soldier’s family, and there is still much to be wanted in that section of Roman family history.
you are a genius!
ReplyDelete