In this chapter, we have looked at the role of the familia in Roman society by discussing four main arguments against the relevance of the familia. These arguments are the supposed lack of relevance of the familia in the public sphere, lack of relevance of the familia outside the elite, low life expectancy, and the residence pattern of the Roman citizens.
It has been argued that although a magistrate alieni iuris was seen as having a higher authority in public life than his pater familias, he still depended on his familia for his position in Roman society, not only because he needed the financial support of his familia, but also in the more fundamental way that citizens sui iuris and alieni iuris were only seemingly equal in public life. A citizen alieni iuris depended on the status of his pater familias for his position in both military and political organisations. This effect is visible not only within the elite, but in the position of sub- and non-elite citizens alieni iuris as well. Furthermore, although he could act in public, he did so loco, ‘in the position of’, his pater familias. This made a citizen alieni
iuris in public a representative of the familia he belonged to.
The familia also influenced Roman society in other ways. One of the main ways was the
use of the familia as a template for a range of groups and organisations within Roman society, including the Roman state itself, which can be interpreted as a familia above the familiae of individual citizens. This became even more the case after the start of the Augustan era, due to the promotion of the Imperial familia.
In this chapter the high mortality in the Roman world was also discussed. This high mortality, combined with the later age at first marriage for men, limited the likelihood that a
pater familias had more than one generation of descendants in his potestas. However, this
demographic situation in itself is not proof that the Romans did not see a familia of more than two generations as something to strive for. If anything, the household composition in Roman Egyptian census declarations are a reminder that such a goal could be reached: according to calculations, a majority of the Egyptians lived in a multiple family household at some point in their lives.
In the last section, the alleged preference of Roman citizens for nuclear households was discussed. We have seen that that the main argument for such a preference, the funerary commemoration, is not as strong an argument as often thought. Comparison with Egypt shows that the commemorative habit does not necessarily reflects actual household composition. Other evidence, both legal and non-legal literary sources and comparisons, seem to point to an enduring preference for larger, multiple family households among the Romans.
The idea that the familia was not really relevant in Roman society outside the legal context seems to be based on two elements in our sources. One is the presumed irrelevance of the familia in military and political affairs, the other consists of the remarks in literary works about the living situation within the elite during the early Empire, where people mostly seem to have lived alone or within nuclear family households.
It seems to me that this interpretation is based on an incomplete understanding of the Roman familia. As mentioned before the familia was not the same as a household; it was a legal construction which could overlap with a household, but this was not necessary the case. In chapter 3 it was mentioned that the familia was not a cage but a corporate group which could be adjusted to specific circumstances. The devices of Roman law offered the head of a
familia quite a lot of possibilities for structuring his or her familia to his or her needs. Family
heads had options to adjust their familia which were either unavailable or scarcely available in most of the western world until the twentieth century: for example divorce, emancipation and the possibility of emancipating members of the familia. In chapter 4, we have seen that being part of a familia as a citizen alieni iuris did not mean plain submission to the will of the pater
familias. There is interaction and room for negotiation.
Like the citizen sui iuris, a citizen alieni iuris could act in public as a representative of his familia. As long as there were no conflicts, it did not matter that much whether a citizen sui
iuris or a citizen alieni iuris acted in public. There was not always a way of knowing whether
the person a Roman citizen dealt with was a citizen alieni iuris or not. In everyday life, it was probably assumed that such a person was either sui iuris or acted with the approval of his or her pater familias. This attitude probably defined the role of citizens alieni iuris in public life and explains why a distinction between citizens sui iuris and alieni iuris is hardly ever made in Roman politics or military cases. It only became important when a conflict arose, and it is in Cicero’s legal speeches that the difference between citizens sui iuris and alieni iuris sometimes crops up.
In my view, this is also the way to look at the question of how an adult citizen alieni
iuris could have functioned in Roman society. He or she could participate in Roman society
because he or she was seen as part of the familia, either as part of the common labour pool of the familia or acting independently, in which the tacit approval of the pater familias was assumed. In this way, citizens alieni iuris acted as what we could call a ‘pater familias by proxy’: it was assumed that such a citizen was loco patris familias or acted with the approval of the
pater familias. Only when a conflict arose which was too big to handle by the citizen alieni iuris,
or when there was a conflict of interest between the pater familias and the citizen alieni iuris, did the legal position of the persons within the framework of the familia become relevant.
This perspective also offers a solution to the perceived change in household composition in the late Republic and the early Empire. As mentioned, a familia is not the same as a household, although it will often have overlapped, as in the case of the poor centurion Ligustinus who lived together with his wife and six sons. As the wealth within the Roman elite grew, however, the number of dwellings available to each elite familia rose. Even a senator like Cicero, who presumably was only averagely wealthy when compared to his senatorial colleagues, had six houses for himself and his two children, while his wife Terentia had a number of properties of her own. This suggests that there is some grain of truth in the remarks by Roman writers that wealth started to influence family life: the familia among elite Romans started to be spread out over a growing number of locations in most senatorial familiae. It was possible, but probably
Chapter 4.5 | concLusion:
FamiLia, LiFe expectancy and househoLd
also necessary, to arrange separate households within the familia. This does not have to mean that the pater familias lost his authority over the members of the familia. They were probably living at other locations because he ordered them to do so, or at least had negotiated with them about it.
The possibility that Roman citizens, especially those outside the elite, did not live in nuclear households should be taken into account when assessing the possible bargaining power of Roman women. Although the possibility of becoming sui iuris potentially increased a woman’s bargaining power towards her husband and his family, living under one roof with her husband’s parents and relatives could also have limited that bargaining power, especially that of young married women outside of the Roman elite.