Corporal Punishment, Authority, and Obedience in the Roman Household

Abstract

Abstract Alan Wats o Nin his recent book, Roman Slave Law, remarks that ‘in many regards the legal position of a slave was very similar to that of a son—of whatever age—in paternal power. [Aside from the capacity to enter into a legal marriage] at private law their positions were very similar. Thus, neither could own property of any kind, the fund called peculium given for their use by the father or master operated in law irrespective of whether the holder was slave or free, their contracts benefited and bound the father or. master to exactly the same extent in exactly the same way, the master acquired property or property rights through them in the same way, and the master was liable at private law for their wrongdoing in the same way [notably in the procedure of noxal surrender] ... It goes without saying that in practice sons and slaves would be treated very differently’ (1987: 46 f.). Watson’s final common-sense qualification does not in fact ‘go without saying’ to some of the most prominent Roman historians of our day. From Paul Veyne’s contribution in A History of Private Life emerges an image of the family very different from our conventional idea of the family today, a unit marked by a ‘natural affection’ between parents and children. For Veyne, the Roman family and household of the Republic and early Principate were units bounded not by affection, but by the limits of the father’s power.

Cite this

Richard Saller (1991). Corporal Punishment, Authority, and Obedience in the Roman Household. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198149187.003.0008

@article{richard1991corporal,
  title  = {Corporal Punishment, Authority, and Obedience in the Roman Household},
  author = {Saller, Richard},
  year   = {1991},
  doi    = {10.1093/oso/9780198149187.003.0008}
}

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 142 citations exist upstream.

Cited by