remarks on two aspects of patria potestas in …oaji.net/articles/2015/2064-1432810151.pdf ·...

FiatIustitiaNo.2/2013 TamásNÓTÁRI29

REMARKS ON TWO ASPECTS OF PATRIA POTESTAS

IN ROMAN LAW

TamásNÓTÁRI*

Abstract A Roman pater familiaswas entitled to the following positive rights: ius vitae acnecis,iusexponendi,iusvendendiandiusnoxaededendi.Whatfollowsisanin‐depthanalysis of the changes in ius vitae ac necis and ius exponendi. Ius vitae ac necisdenotes rightofdisposalover the lifeanddeathofa filius/filia familias,while iusexponenditherighttoexposenewborn infants.Exposingachildoftencontained itsdeathorwilfulmurder;e.g.,incaseofadeformedchildwhentheaimwastogetthefamilyorthecommunityridofprodigiumrepresentingillluck.Therefore,itseemstobe more proper to discuss the rights a father had against newborn infants—nomatteriftheyappliedtokillingoronlyexposingthechild—aspartofiusexponendisincekillingorexposingchildrenwasseveraltimeslimitedandsanctionedinasingleimperialdecree.Originally,iusvitaeacneciswassacralandpunitivelawpower.Itssacralcharactercame to the frontwhenkillingadeformedchildsince thisright isthe component of the father’s power over his newborn infant, and this will bediscussed under the heading ius exponendi; its punitive law aspect will becomeobviouswhen it isusedagainstanadultchild.Thispaper, first, intends todescribechangesiniusvitaeacnecis,anddwellontherestrictionsandrulesofprocedureofexercisingit(I.).Afterthat,changesiniusexponendiwillbefollowedup,withspecialregardtotheregulationofthelegalstatusoftheexposedchild(II.).Keywords:patriapotestas,iusvitaeacnecis,iusexponendiInRomanlawpotestasalwaysdenotessomepower;plenainrepotestas isfull

power of the owner of the thing over the thing, by which ”in his own propertyeverybodycandoeverythingthatdoesnotdisturbothers”.1Paterfamiliaswasentitledtopatriapotestasover his children anddominicapotestas over his slaves.2Patriapotestas, just as power over one’s wife,manus, comes from the same full‐scopepoweroftheheadofthefamily.Thispoweristotal:ontheonehand,becausefreefamilymembers,slavesandlifelessthingsareallsubjectedtoit;ontheotherhand,because it contains the right to destroy things and kill the above mentioned

* Dr.habil.,AssociateProfessor,PhD,SAPIENTIAUniversity,DepartmentofLaw,Cluj‐Napoca;Seniorresearchfellow,InstituteforLegalStudiesoftheCentreofSocialSciencesoftheHungarianAcademyofSciences.1 Ulp.D.8,5,8,5.2 Paul. D. 50, 16, 215. ’Potestatis’ verbo plura significantur: In personamagistratuum imperium: inpersonaliberorumpatriapotestas:inpersonaservidominium.


persons.3Consequently, thepoweroverpersonsand things theheadof the familywas entitled to (potestas,manus,mancipium,dominium) developed from the sameancientpower,noneoftheformationsofpowerservedasanexamplefortheother4,which clearly refutes Mommsen’s view that the father had ownership over hischildren.5AccordingtoUlpian,paterfamiliasistheonewhoisentitledtodominioninhishouse.6(Domusisalsoasacralconcept,whichhaditsownhouseholdgods(diipenates).7

It iswell known that according to Roman law certain persons have rights oftheirown,suchasthepaterfamilias,othersareunderpower,suchasthewife(uxorinmanu), the person inmancipium and the family child under patria potestas.8SeveraldescriptionsofpatriapotestascanbefoundinthesourcesofRomanlaw,e.g.in Institutiones ofGaius9 and Iustian.10Almost surprised,Gaiusnotes that such anextended father’s power does not exist anywhere else, perhaps only among theGalatas.(Heispresumablywrongonthispointsincewehaveinformationonsimilarextensivepotestas in theAntiquity among theCelts inGaul11, as it isdescribedbyCaesar.12) Although several presentations of patria potestas can be found in thesources,itwasnotdefineduniformly.Presumably,theyconsidereditunnecessaryto

3 MaxKaser,Der Inhaltderpatriapotestas, in ”ZeitschriftderSavigny‐Stiftung fürRechtsgeschichte,RomanistischeAbteilung”,83,1971,pp.62–87,62.4 Kaser1971.p.63.InWarheitberuhtdieGleichartigkeitderGewaltenüberdiePersonenundüberdieSachen nur darauf, daß sie beide, auch noch lange Zeit nach ihrer Ablösung aus der einheitlichenUrgewalt, gleich total geblieben sind.Keine hat der anderen zum Vorbild gedient, sondern beide sindebenso ursprünglich, wie die Teilung einer Sache in einheitliche Teile den Teilstücken im gleichenAugenblickeinselbstandigesDaseinverleiht.5 TheodorMommsen,RömischesStrafrecht,Leipzig,1899.p.17,20.6 Ulp.D.50,16,195,2.Paterfamiliasest,quiindomodominiumhabet.7 Cic.dom.41.Quidestsanctius,quidomnireligionemunitiusquamDomusunuscuiusquecivium.Hicarae sunt,hic foci,hicdiipenates,hic sacra religiones ceremoniae continentur.Hocprofugium est itasanctum,utindeabripineminemfassit.8 Inst.1,8.9 Gai. inst. 1, 55. Item inpotestatenostra sunt liberinostriquos iustisnuptiisprocreavimus.Quod iusproprium civium Romanorum est; fere enim nulli alii sunt homines qui talem in filios suos habentpotestatem,qualemnoshabemus.IdquedivusHadrianusedicto,quodproposuitdehisquisibiliberisquesuis ab eo civitatem Romanam petebant, significavit.Necme praeterit Galatarum gentem credere inpotestateparentumliberosesse.10Inst.1,9. Inpotestatenostrasunt liberinostri,quosex iustisnuptiisprocreaverimus.Nuptiaeautemsivematrimonium est viri etmulieris coniunctio individuam consuetudinem vitae continens. Iusautempotestatis,quod in liberoshabemus,propriumestciviumRomanorum:nullienimaliisunthomines,quitalem in liberoshabeantpotestatem,qualemnoshabemus.Qui igiturexteetuxoretuanascitur, intuapotestateest:itemquiexfiliotuoetuxoreeiusnascitur,idestnepostuusetneptis,aequeintuapotestate,etproneposetproneptisetdeincepsceteri,quitamenexfilistuanascitur,intuapotestatenonest,sedinpatriseius.11Ludwig Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den östlichen Provinzen des römischen Kaiserreichs,Leipzig,1891,p.24.12Caes.Gall. 4, 19, 3–4.Viri inuxores sicuti in liberosvitaenecisquehabentpotestatem,etcumpaterfamiliaeinlustioreloconatusdecessit,eiuspropinquiconveniuntetdemorte,siresinsuspicionemvenit,deuxoribus inservilemmodumquaestionemhabent,etsiconpertumest, igniatqueomnibus tormentisexcruciatasinterficiunt.…omniaquaequeviviscordifuissearbitranturinigneminferunt,etiamanimaliaac paulo supra hancmemoriam servi et clientes, quos ab iis dilectos esse constabat, iustis funeribusconfectisunacremabantur.


determineitexhaustivelysincepatriapotestaswasclearlytheproductoftheRomanspirit,anditoweditsexistencenottotheState’slawmakingasitwentbacktotimeslong before the State.13 Only sui iuris citizens with full right could be patresfamilias14,allthepersonswereunderpatriapotestasoverwhomthepaterfamiliasexercised his rights not due to dominica potestas ormanus: children begotten inlawfulmarriage15,adoptedchildren16, legitimatedchildren,wivesofbloodchildrenandadoptedchildren(incaseofmanusmarriage), if their fatherwasunderpatriapotestas, grandchildren,great‐grandchildrenetc.andtheirwives(incaseofmanusmarriage).17InWatson’sdefinition,patriapotestasmeantthepowerthatinRomansociety themale head of the familywas entitled to over the free familymemberssubordinatedtohim(apartfromthewife,whowasundermanus).18

Pater familias was entitled to the following rights: ius vitae ac necis, iusexponendi,iusvendendiandiusnoxaededendi.19Whatfollowsisanin‐depthanalysisofthechangesiniusvitaeacnecisandiusexponendi.

I. InAntiquesourcesseveralreferencescanbefoundto iusvitaeacnecis that

constituted an essential element of thepotestasof thepater familias.20One of theroyal laws left to us by Dionysius of Halicarnass under the name of Romulusregulatesthefather’spunitivepoweroverhisadultchild.Accordingtoit,thefatherwasentitledtofull‐scopepoweroverhissonduringtheson’swholelifetime,hewasallowedtorestricthispersonalfreedom,beathim,exilehiminhandcuffstodoruralwork,andkillhim;thus,thesource,listingthecanonofpunishmentsthatcouldbeimposed, refers to the possibility of exercising ius vitae ac necis almost as ultimaratio.21Althoughthelawdoesnotsayanythingoneitherthescopeofapplicationofthesepunishmentsor theprocedurenecessary for imposing them, it canbemadeprobablethatthefamilychildwasnotatthemercyofthefather,ifweconsiderthestrictcontrolthatthegensexercisedinitiallyovertheinternallifeofthefamilyandwhichwas later assumed by the censor.22We know fromDionysius that censorescontrolled how the pater familias brought up their children and if they deemedupbringingtoostrictortoomild,theytookfirmmeasures;theyactedsimilarlywithregard to disciplining slaves.23 Presumably, censoresalso took care to ensure that

13Elemér Pólay, Az atyai hatalom intézményének alapvonalai a római jogban. (Principles of patriapotestasinRomanLaw),Miskolc,1940,p.7.14Inst.1,9,1–2.15Gai.inst.1,55.16Gai.inst.1,97.17Pólay,1940,p.14.18AlanWatson,TheLawofPersonsintheLateRomanRepublic,Oxford,1967,p.77.19TamásNótári,Rómaiköz‐ésmagánjog.(RomanPublicandPrivateLaw),Szeged,2011,p.176.20Cic.dom.29.77;Pis40.97;fin1,8;rep2,35;Val.Max.5,8,2‐5,9,1;5,10,1;6,1,6;Suet.Tib.35;Liv.1,26;2,41;8,7;epit.54;Plin.nat.34,4,16;Auct.adHer.4,16,23;Sall.Cat.39,5;52,30;Sen.clem.1,11.50;Quint.decl.317;DioCass.37,36;Gell.5,19,9.21Dion.Hal.2,26,4.22Liv.6,20;Gell.9,2.23Dion.Hal.20,13,3.


the religious cult of the house communitywas properly fulfilled.24 By clear irony,Plutarchnotesthatcensoresdidnotleaveeithermarriageorupbringingofchildrenor feasts without control, instead they exercised supervision over everybody’sconductoflifeandpoliticalthinking.25

The first proof of the restrictions of exercising ius vitae ac necis, whichconstituted the content of patria potestas, is provided by the stipulation of theTwelveTableLawthatcanbemoreorlesssafelyreconstructedfromtheGaiustextof Codex Veronensis and from Fragmentum Augustoduniense: ”Ergo tum praetorcorpus tedederedom……………parentemputes…… iureuti t……………<do>mino velparenti etiam occidere eum etmortuum dedere in no<xam> …………………… patriapotestas potest. n ………… cum patris potestas talis est ut habeat vitae et necispo<testatem>.Defiliohoctractaricrudeleest,sed…nonest.…npostr….<occi>deresine iusta causa, ut constituit lex XII tabularum, sed deferre iu<dici> debet proptercalumniam.26 FragmentumAugustoduniense discusses the power ofpater familiasthatgiveshimtherighttokilltheslaveorfamilychildwhohascauseddamagetoathirdpartydelictually,andto fulfil theobligationofnoxaededitiobyhandingoverthecorpseorapartthereof.Directlyafterthat,itclearlystatesthatpatriapotestascontainsiusvitaeacnecis,andthatinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheTwelveTableLawthepaterfamiliaswasnotallowedtokillhissonsineiustacausa.Krüger’sreadingofthetextisnotcompletelycertain,however,inspiteofthesechangesitispossible to read the phrase without any doubt <occi>dere sine iusta causa, utconstituitlexXIItabularum,i.e.,thatinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheTwelveTableLawthepaterfamiliaswasnotallowedtokillhissonwithoutiustacausa.Theauthenticity of thequotationwouldbedoubtful if it shouldor couldbepresumedthat this is only an independent insertionof the juristwho compiledFragmentumAugustoduniense from Gaius’s texts. However, in the present case ratherfragmentarytextofCodexVeronensiscontainsthe”…tabul…”fragment27,whichcanmeannothingelsethanlegesXIItabularum,whichmakesithighlyprobablethatthisprovisionfromtheTwelveTableLawwascontainedintheoriginalGaiustexttoo.28Kunkelclaimsthatoriginallyiustacausameantthatitwasmandatorytoprovethatthe son had committed a crime which made it lawful to apply death penalty.29Presumably,demonstrationhadadeterminedorderwhere,afterthecasehadbeenaccuratelydescribedandinvestigated,thefamilychildchargedwithcommittingthecrime was given the opportunity to defend himself. This is also implied by the

24ElemérPólay,Acensoriregimenmorumésazún.házibíráskodás.(Regimenmorumofthecensorsandthesocallediudiciumdomesticum),in”ActaUniversitatisSzegediensis”,XII,1965,p.5.25Plut.Catomai.16.26Fragmentum Augustoduniense 85–86 in Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani, P. Krüger–Th.Mommsen–G.Studemund(edd.),Berolini,1923,p.160.27Gai.inst.4,80.28AlfredoMordechaiRabello,Effettipersonalidella„patriapotestas”,Milano,1979,p.90;FerdinanddeVisscher,Lerégimeromainde lanoxalité,Bruxelles,1947,p.175;WolfgangKunkel,DasKonsiliumimHausgericht in ”Zeitschrift der Savigny‐Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistische Abteilung”, 83,1966,pp.219–251,243.29Kunkel,1966,p.243.


phrases found in the cases to be discussed later cognita domi causa30, inspectadiligentissimecausa31,auditacausaandquaeadulescensprosedixerat32.

The fragmentdeferre iu<……..>debetpropter calumniam was read by its firstpublisher, Chatelain as hoc, which was borrowed from him by Krüger too. First,FerriniandScialoja readandsupplemented it to iu<dici>,whichversionwassoonshared by Krüger too. However, as it has been proved by Kunkel33, the iu<dici>reading isnotacceptableeither in termsofcontentor textualcriticism.Namely, ifthe translation ofdeferre iudici is “beimRichterAnklage erheben” or “demRichteranzeigen”, then, by interpreting iudex as a body of administration of justice(öffentliche Justiz), two opportunities are offered. Either the pater familias shallbring a charge against his son before the law to avoid calumnia; but thisinterpretationwould fundamentally question the existence or exercisability of iusvitae ac necis, which constitutes a cardinal point of patria potestas. Or the paterfamilias had to report to the iudex the killing carried out by himowing to the iusvitaeacnecishewasentitledto,andinthiscaseit isdifficulttoharmoniseamereobligation to report with the prohibition of killing of the filius familias sine iustacausa. If we accept the reading iu<……> as proper, the addition iu<dici> cannotsatisfyusbecauseitdoesnotfillupthelacunapresentinthetext.Namely,theedgeof the pagewas cut off in equalwidth in order to use it again, so, at least seven‐eight—andnotfour—lettersaremissingfromeachline;consequently,theadditioniu<dicibus> insteadof iu<dici> seemstobemoreacceptable.Thisreadingwillgivesenseifweinterpretiudicesnotasjudgesofadministrationofjusticebutmembersof theconsilium, therelativesandfriends.Atthesametime, it isalsopossiblethatthereadingiu<……>nothavingbeenconfirmedcanbereplacedbynec<essariis>orpro<pinquis>. As the reading of the text raises serious problems, it should not beconsidered a proof beyond any doubt of the absolute necessity of consiliumnecessariorum,yet,fromtheaboveitisabsolutelyclearthatinordertoexerciseiusvitae ac necis the crime of the filius had to be proved (iusta causa), if the fatherwanted to avoid the charge of murder. At the same time, other sources provideconvincingproofsthattoexerciseiusvitaeacnecisitwasnecessarytoholdiudiciumdomesticumand to convene theconsiliumnecessariorum: ”Maioresnostridominumpatrem familias appellaverunt, honores in domo gerere, ius dicere, permiserunt etdomumpusillamrempublicamesse iudicaverunt.”34Seneca, inhis letter toLucilius,mentionsthattheancestorsmadeitpossibleforthedominus,i.e.,thepaterfamiliasto fulfil offices in the house community and exercise iurisdictio, thus, theyconsidered the home or house community a reduced‐sized copy of the State. Thedominus,exercisingpunitivepower,actedincompliancewithexemplummaiorum35

30Liv.2,41,10.31Val.Max.9,5,1.32Sen.clem.1,15,3.33Kunkel,1966,p.244.34Sen.epist.47,14.35Tac. ann. 2, 50.Adulterii graviorem poenam deprecatus, ut exemplomaiorum propinquis suis ultraducentesimumlapidemremoveretursuasit.


and priscum institutum according to Tacitus;36 in compliance withmosmaiorumaccordingtoSueton;37andincompliancewithconsuetudoaccordingtoCicero38.Theiudiciumtookplace,withincertainformalities,usuallyintheatriumofthehomeofthepaterfamilias.39

Withregardtothequestionwhetheriudiciumdomesticumwasrealjurisdiction,the literature is rather divided. The view that does not acknowledge iudiciumdomesticum as real jurisdiction can be traced back toMommsen.40He refuses theconceptofiudiciumdomesticumforbeinganoxymoron,andspeaksaboutHauszuchtonly,whichcanbecalledcoercitioordisciplinatoo;so,iudiciumdomesticum,thatis,according to him Hauszucht is nothing else than a sort of a Gewissensgericht.41FollowingMommsen,VolterraclaimsthatthejudgmentoftheiudiciumdomesticumdidnotexemptthepersonunderpowerfromtheState’scourtproceedingsandthepunishmentimposedbyit42,andthattheexistenceofState’scourtsetupforjudgingthe crime excludes the existence of iudicium domesticum as a legal institution.43Guidedbyasimilarthought,Mommsenalsomissestheaccuratedescriptionofthescope of crimes to be judged by iudicium domesticum.44 According to Kunkel’sopinion, thiswayof thinkingwasnot typicalof theRomansasscopesofauthorityoverlappedintheorderofthestateadministrationofjusticetoo,whichalsoprovesthat the competence of the courts of justices ordered to judge determined crimeshad never become exclusive, between domestic jurisdiction and the State’sadministrationofjustice,andwhiletheyexistedsidebysideamutualcompetitionofcompetencies prevailed between them.45 (A similar situation evolvedbetween thetresviricapitales and thequaestionesperpetuae46, anddue to certain crimes itwaspossibletobringachargebeforethequaestiorepetundarum,thequaestiomaiestatisor thequaestiodevi too.47)Kaser—althoughhedoesnot resolutely refuse to giveany significance to iudicium domesticum as Mommsen and Volterra—emphasisesthat itdidnotbelong to thescopeof ius.48 Iudiciumdomesticum isconsideredrealjurisdictionbythosewhomoreorlessshareGeib’sopinion,asGeibclaimsthatthepaterfamiliaswasentitledtotherightofpunitivejurisdictionoverthemembersof

36Tac. ann. 13, 32. Isque prisco instituto propinquis coram de capite famaque coniugis cognovit etinsontemnuntiavit.37Sue.Tib.35.utpropinquimoremaiorumdecommunisententiacoercerent38Cic.Rosc.Am.15,44.Quodconsuetudinepatresfaciunt,idquasinovumreprehendis…39Val.Max5, 8,3.Succurrebanteffigiesmaiorumcum titulis suisuteorumvirtutesposterinon solumlegerent,sedetiamimmittarentur.40Mommsen,1899,pp.16‐26.41Mommsen,1899,p.17.42EdoardoVolterra,Ilpretesotribunaledomesticoindirittoromano,RISG,85,1948,pp.103–153,117.43Volterra,1948,pp.135ff.44Mommsen,1899,p.20.45Kunkel,1966,p.222.46Wolfgang Kunkel, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalverfahrens invorsullanischerZei,München,1962,p.76.47Kunkel,1966,p.223.48Kaser, 1971, p. 69 ‐Die Eindordnung der hauslichen Gerichtsbarkeit in den Bezirk dermores läßtvielmehr deutlich erkennen, daß sie bei der Scheidung von Recht und Sitte aus der Rechtsordnungausschlossenwordenist.


his family.49 Romans considered the family a reduced‐sized copy of the State, inwhich pater familias can be made equal to magistratus having imperium, andsimilarlytheir iudisdictocanbemadeparalleltoo50,asBonfantehasalreadycalledtheattentionresolutelytothispoint.51ThisopinionwassharedbyDüll,althoughinhisviewiniudiciumdomesticumthepaterfamiliaswasnotnecessarilyboundbytheopinionoftheconsilium.52Kunkeltiesthewife’sandchildren’scapitalculpabilitybyallmeanstoconsilium,andbelievesthatthepater familiascouldnotmakehimselfindependent of the majority judgement of the consilium with regard to guilt orinnocenceof theaccused.53Belowweprovidea fewexampleswhichreveal that ifthefatherwantedtoexercisetheiusvitaeacnecishewasentitledtoandwantedtobeexempted fromthechargeofmurder,hehad todealwith thecase inconsiliumnecessariorum.

Livy discloses two traditions on the conviction and death of Cassius.54According tooneof them,his fatherexecuted thedeath sentenceonhim;afterhehadheldthenecessarytrialathishome,hehadhissonwhippedandexecuted.Heofferedtheson’spropertytoCeres,hehadastatuemadeofthatandhaditwrittenon it that it had beenmade by Cassius’s family. According to the other tradition,quaestores Caeso Fabius and L. Valerius brought a charge against Cassisus due toperduellioandconvictedhim in theproceedingsconductedbefore thecomitium in486/5 B.C. Livius tends to give credit to the second tradition, however, theimpossibility of this version has already been demonstrated by Mommsen too.55Therefore,inthetraditionthatcanbeconsideredauthentic,anexampleofiudiciumdomesticumispresentedtous.Killingonthefather’sorderisnotarbitrarybecausethe cases have been investigated and negotiated. Livy does not expressly refer toconsiliumnecessariorum, however, as theother casespublishedbyhimreveal thiswasnaturaltothewriteroftheageofAugustus,hisintentionbygivingthisaccountwas primarily to highlight the severitas andgravitas of heads of family of ancient

49GustavGeib,DieGeschichtedesrömsichenCriminalprozesses,Leipzig,1842,p.82.50Sen.contr.10,2,8.ceteraiuraputo,paternoimperiosubiectaesse;Gell10,23,4.Vir…mulieriiudexprocensoreest,imperiumquodvideturhabet.Sen.epist.47,14.Maioresnostridominumpatremfamiliasappellaverunt,honoresillisindomogerere,iusdicerepermiseruntetdomumpusillamrempublicamesseiudicaverunt.51Pietro Bonfante, Corso di diritto romano. Roma 1925. I. p. 98. Tutto quanto il diritto punitivo delpaterfamiliasnonepoialtrimentispiegabilechecome l’eserciziodiun imperogiurisdizionale.Leformesono quelle di un giudizio publico; come il magistrato ha un consilium di sua libera scelta, cosi ilpaterfamiliasconvocaall’uopounconsiliumnecessariorumopropinquorumoanchediamiciedipersoneautorevoli—inuncaso,sinarra,unpaterfamiliaschiamoaconsiglioquasituttoilsenato—edhaluogounverogiudizio,iudiciumdomesticum.52Rudolf Düll, Iudiciumdomesticum,abdicatioundapoceryxis in ”Zeitschrift der Savigny‐Stiftung fürRechtsgeschichte,RomanistischeAbteilung”,63,1946,pp.54–116,60.53Kunkel,1966,p.249.54Liv.2,41,10‐12.Quemubiprimummagistratuabiitdamnatumnecatumquecontstat.Suntquipatremauctorem eius supplicii ferant: eum cognitadomi causa verberasseacnecassepeculiumque filiiCerericonsecravisse;signum inde factumesseet inscriptum: ’ExCassia familiadatum.’Invenioapudquosdam,idque propius fidem est, a quaestoribus Caesone Fabio et L. Valerio diem dictam perduellionis,damnatumquepopuli iudicio,dirutaspubliceaedes.EaestareaanteTellurisaedem.Ceterumsive illuddomesticumsivepublicumfuitiudicium,damnaturServioCornelioQ.Fabioconsulibus.55TheodorMommsen,RömischesStaatrechtI–III,Berlin,1887–1888,II,p.541.


times.56AccordingtoVoci,thefactthatitisthewordfamiliaandnotthewordpaterthatcanbereadonthestatueerected forCeresrefers toagiudiziocommune.57 InthepresentcaseitseemstobepropertotranslatethewordfamiliaasfamilyandnotaspropertybecausealsoLiviusmentionstheconsecratiooftheson’speculiumonly,and familia (pecuniaque)58 was not used as a synonym of peculium. The phrasedamnatus,forthatmatter,doesnotprovethatthefatherhadadoptedthejudgmentindependently,sineconsiliobecausethewordscondemnareanddamnareinclassicalquaestiolawsuitsdenotetheactivityoftheaccusertoo.59

According to Valerius Maximus L. Gellius (cos. 72 B.C.; censor 70 B.C.), whochargedhissonwiththe intentiontokillhimandhavingcommittedadulterywithhis stepmother, invited almost the entire senatus to the trial to judge his son’scrime.60 He disclosed his suspicion to the accused and allowed him to defendhimself; then, after very careful deliberation of the case he acquitted him on thegrounds of the judgement of the consilium and of his own. The judgment wasadopted de consilii sententia, so it was based on the votes of the consilium; suasententia refers merely to the fact that the father found his son innocent too.61Volterra asserts that the father, being convinced of his son’s innocence from theoutset,convenedtheconsilium toclarifyhisownhonestyandtosavehissonfromthepopularactionproceedingsofparricidium.62Kunkel,however,callstheattentiontothepointthatthesourcedoesnotcontainanyreferencetothat,whatismore,itspeaksaboutahighlycarefulinvestigationofthecharge,andthatthestateoffactsofparricidium had never been extended tomerely attempted or planned crime andthattheassassinationattemptwastobepunishedincertaincasesonly,evenafterlexCorneliadesicariis.63

According toSenecaL.TariusRufus (cos. suff. 16B.C.)punishedhis son,whotriedtokillhim,byexileonly,andcontinuedtopayhimthepreviouslysetannuity.64

56Kunkel,1966,p.225.57PasqualeVoci,StoriadellapatriapotestasdaAugustoaDioclezianoinIURA,31,1980,pp.37–100,53.58See also János Zlinszky, Familia pecuniaque in ”Jogtörténeti Tanulmányok”, VI, Budapest, 1986,pp.395‐406.59ThLLIV.125condemnoBdeaccusatore:efficereutisquocumagiturcondemnetur;V.17damnoBdeaccusatore,efficereutisquocumagiturdamnetur.60Val.Max.5,9,1.L.Gelliusonmibushonoribusadcensuramdefunctus,cumgravissimacriminadefilio,innovercamconmissumstuprumetparricidiumcogitatum,propemodumexploratahaberet,nontamenad vindictam continuo procucurrit, sed paene universo senatu adhibito in consilium expositissuspicionibusdefendendi seadulescentipotestatem fecit inspectaquediligentissime causaabsolvit eumcumsonsiliitumetiamsuasententia.Quodsiimpetuiraeabstractussaevirefestinasset,admisissetmagisscelusquamvindicassset.61Kunkel,1966,p.224.62Volterra,1948,p.133.63Kunkel,1966,p.224.64Sen.clem. 1, 15, 2–6.Cogniturusde filioTariusadvocavit inconsiliumCarsaremAugustum;venit inprivatospenates,adseditparsalieniconsiliifuit,nondixit:’Immoindomummeamveniat’,quodsifactumesset,Caesarisfuturaeratcognitio,nonpatris.Auditacausaexcussisqueomnibusexhisquaeadulescensprosedixerat,ethis,quibusarguebatur,petit,utsententiamsuamauisquescriberet,neeaomiumfieret,quae Caesaris fuisset. Deinde priusquam aperientur codicilli, iuravit se Tarii, hominis locupletis,hereditatemnonaditurum.Tariusquidemeodemdieetalterumheredemperdidit,sedCaesarlibertatemsententiaesuaeredemit;etpostquamadprobavitgratuitamesseseveritatemsuam,quodprincipisempercurandumest,dixitrelegandum,quopatrivideretur.


If Seneca praised the bonus pater familias only, then the description of the casewould serve as a proof of the unlimited punitive power of pater familias. Thephilosopher,however,commemoratesAugustustooasbonusprinceps.Thepraiseoftheemperoranddescriptionofhisbehaviourclearlyreveals that the filius’scrimewasjudgedbyaconsilium,andAugustuswasitsmostrespectedmember,however,amemberonly,because,takingcarethatthefathershouldconductthecognitio,hedidnotasktheconsiliumanditsmemberstoappearbeforehim,instead,hewenttosee them at the home of the head of the family. After the cognitio had beenconducted,inwhichhissonwasallowedtodefendhimself,inaccordancewithusualorder of procedure the persons present cast their vote orally on the issue of theson’sguilt,however,Augustus,preventinghisownvotecastfirstastheballotofthemosthighlyrankedpersonfrominfluencingtheothers,proposedvotinginwriting.Aftertheboards,onwhichthesententiaswerewritten,hadbeencollectedbuthadnotbeenopenedyet,hemadeanoaththathewouldnotacceptTarius’sinheritance.So, in this case the issue of guilt was decided inwriting, and he did notwant toinfluence them. In imposing the punishment, however, he wanted to urge theconsilium toadopta lenient judgment,whichwascarriedoutorally.Tariushad todecideonthebasisofthemajorityofthevotescast,becauseifhehadconsideredthesententiasadviceonly,thenAugustus’seffortsnottoinfluenceanybodybyhisvoteandtocounthisballotasequaltotheothervoteswouldhavebeenunnecessary.

In the case referred byMarcian, emperorHadrian sent a father to exilewhokilledhissonwhiletheywerehuntingbecausehehadanadulterousaffairwithhisstepmother.65Accordingtotheemperor,theactofassassinationisadeedworthyofarogueandnotafather,astheessenceofpatriapotestas ispietasandnotcruelty.The father should not have killed his son even if he had caught him in the act ofadultery with his stepmother as he was not entitled to do that by lex Iulia deadulteriiscoercendis.66Whereas,iftheabovementionedlawwouldhaveentitledthepaterfamiliastokillhissonorwifecaughtintheactofadultery,hereheshouldnothaveexercisedhissuchrightbecausethiswasnotacaseofbeingcaughtintheactbut a permanent adulterous affair ( the phrase adulterabat is used here asdurativum). In this case in iudicium domesticum a consilium should have beenconvened to judge over the offenders. The father did not do that, instead, heassassinatedhisson.ItismoreprobablethathereHadrianpunishesthefatherduetolackofproperpunitiveproceedings,iudiciumdomesticumandnotjustschimplicheGesinnung,asKaserpresumes.67

Specialattentionshouldbepaid to the fragmentofUlpianthatstates that thefather shall not kill his sonwithout hearing him; instead, he shall bring a chargeagainst him before the principals of the province.68 The first part of the text

65Marc. D. 48, 9, 5. Divus Hadrianus fertur, cum in venatione filium suum quidam necaverat, quinovercamadulterabat, ininsulameumdeportasse,quod latronismagisquampatris iureeum interfecit:nampatriapotestasinpietatedebet,nonatrocitateconsistere.66D.48,5.67Kaser,1971,p.69.68Ulp. D. 48, 8, 2. Indauditum filium pater occidere non potest sed accusare eum apud praefectumpraesidemveprovinciaedebet.


(indauditum filium pater occidere non potest) is perhaps the only trace of theexistenceofiudiciumdomesticuminIustinian’sDigest.Theoriginalityofthesecondpart of the text (sedaccusare eumapudpraefectumpraesidemveprovinciaedebet)has been questioned by Mommsen already69, and Bonfante clearly considered itinterpolated.70Perozzibelievedthatthedescriptionwaspossiblyoriginalbecauseinhis view in the times of Severus the rights the fatherwas entitled to had not losttheireffectyet,theyweresubordinatedtotheobligationtoreporttothemagistratusonly.71Kunkeladdsthefollowingexplanationtothislocus:Thefirstpartforbidsthefathertokillhissonwithouthearinghim;thesecondpart,however,clearlyrefusestogivehimtherightofkillingandtherebyentirelyandgenerallyordershimtobringachargebeforetheState’scourtofjustice.Therefore,itisprobablethattheoriginaltextappliedtothecaseofholdingtheiudiciumdomesticum,andifunderitthefiliuswasallowedtodefendhimself,itpermittedthekillingoftheson.Furthermore,inhisopinion, thepartonpraesesandpraefectus isnotnecessarily interpolatedbecausethefathercouldalsowaiveexercisinghispunitivepowerandbringtheson’scrimebeforepubliccourtofjustice,andso,perhaps,thecompilersdeletedthereferencetoiudiciumdomesticum only,whichmighthave runas follows: ”sedcognosceredeeocumamicisvelaccusareeumapudpraefectumpraesidemveprovinciaedebet.”72

In the Digest, apart from the above‐mentioned case, all traces of iudiciumdomesticum and consilium necessariorum had been carefully deleted by thecompilersaspatriapotestashadbeenreducedtoamerely instructive,disciplinarypoweralreadybeforeIustinianus,andsotheiusvitaeacnecisexercisediniudiciumdomesticumhadcompletely lost itssignificance.Consequently, the lackof iudiciumdomesticumandconsilium cannotbeprovedby theargumentume silentio thatwecannotfindanyreferencetotheminIustinian’scodification.73

Thefactthatiudiciumdomesticumwasrequiredinordertoexerciseiusvitaeacnecisisapparentfromtheabove.Incertainexceptionalcasesthelawallowedkillingsineiudiciotoo.AmongthesecasestheregulationsoflexIuliadeadulteriiscoercendishadhighlygreatsignificance.Thislawprovidesthefatherwiththerighttokillbothhis daughter caught in the act of adultery and theman committing adultery,withimpunity;however,itconfinesthisrighttocertaintermsandlimits.74Thedaughterhadtobeunderthefather’s75potestas76,theadulteriumhadtobecommittedathis 69Mommsen,1899,p.618.70Bonfante,1925,p.111.71SilvioPerozzi,Instituzionididirittoromano,Roma,1928,I,p.424.OnthecontraryseeKunkel,1966,p.248.72Kunkel,1966,p.249.73Kunkel,1966,p.247.74EvaCantarella,Adulterio,omicidio legittimoecausad’onore indirittoromano in ”Studi inonorediG.Scherillo”,I,Milano,1972.pp.243–274.75Pap.D.48,5,23.(22)Necinealegenaturalisabadoptivopaterseparatur.76Pap.D.48,5,21. (20)Patridatur iusoccidendiadulterumcum filiaquam inpotestatehabet: itaquenemoaliusexpatribusidemiurefaciet:sednecfiliusfamiliaspater.Ulp.D.48,5,24(23),2.Quarenon,ubicumque deprehenderit pater, permittitur ei occidere, sed domi suae generive sui tantum, illa ratioredditur, quodmaiorem iniuriam putavit legislator, quod in domum patris autmariti ausa fuerit filiaadulteruminducere.


ownorhisson‐in‐law’shouse77, the fatherhad tokillhisdaughter too,alongwiththeman.Ifhekilledthecorreusonly,itwasconsideredhomicida,andhisdeedwastobejudgedinaccordancewith lexCorneliadesicariis.78Thefatherwhokilledthecorreusonlywasnotpunishableintheeventthathisdaughterstayedalivebecauseshe fled and not because the father saved her life.79 The rescripta of emperorsMarcusAureliusandCommodusprovidedthefatherwithacquittalfromthechargeofhomicidium in thecasewherethe fatherhadkilledthecorreusbuthisdaughterstayedalive, ifthefatherhadseriouslywoundedthedaughter—whichrevealsthathewantedtokillher—buthisdaughterrecoveredowingtopureluck.80ThefatherhadtocatchtheoffendersinipsisrebusVeneris.81Hehadtokillbothoffendersatthesametime,withoutanydelay(uno ictuetuno impetuetaequali ira).82 If thefatherkilledhisdaughteronlyafteracertainamountof timehaselapsed, itwasdeemedhomicida,if,however,thedaughterescaped,andthefatherreachedandkilledher—asheactedcontinuationeanimi—hewasacquittedfromthechargeofhomicidium.83WhatistheconnectionbetweeniusvitaeacnecisarisingfrompatriapotestasandiusoccidendiprovidedbylexIuliadeadulteriiscoercendis?84Papinian85,tothequestionwhy itwas necessary to set forth in law that the father had the power to kill hisdaughtertooalthoughtherelevantlexregiagrantedhimvitaenecisquepotestasover

77Paul. Coll. 4, 12, 1. Permittitur patri tam adoptivo quam naturali, adulterum cum filia cuiusquedignitatisdomisuaevelgenerisuideprehensumsuanamuoccidere.78Paul.Coll.4,2,6.Sedsifiliamnoninterfeceritsedsolumadulterum,homicidiireusest.Pap.Coll.4,9,1.Si pater quis adulterum occidit et filiae suae pepercit, quaero quid adversus eum sit statuendum?Respondit:sinedubioistepaterhomicidaest:igiturtenebiturlegeCorneliasesicariis.79Pap. Coll. 4, 9, 2. Plane si filia non voluntate patris, sed casu servata est, non minimam habebitdefensionempater,quod forte fugit filia.Nam lex itapunithomicidam,sidolomalohomicidium factumfuerit,hicautempaternonideoservavitfiliam,quiavoluit,sedquiaoccidereeamnonpotuit.80Mac. D. 48, 5, 33. (32)Nihil interest,adulteram filiampriuspater occideritannon,dumutrumqueoccidat:namsialterumoccidit,legeCorneliareuserit.Quodsialterooccisoaltervulreatusfuerit,verbisquidem legisnon liberatur: seddivusMarcus itCommodus rescripserunt impunitatem ei concedi,quialicet intermptoadulteromuliersupervixeritposttamgraviavulnera,quaeeipater infixerat,magis fatoquamvoluntateeiusservataest.81Ulp.D.48,5,24(23)Quodaitlex ’infiliaadulterumdeprehenderit’,nonotiosumvidetur:voluitenimitademumhancpotestatempatricompetere,siinipsaturpitudinefiliamdeadulteriodeprehendat.Labeoquoqueitaprobat,etPomponiusscripsitinipsisrebusVenerisdeprehensumoccidi:ethocestquodSoloitDracodicuntenerga.82Ulp.D.48,5,24(23),4.Quodaitlex’incontinentifiliamoccidat’,siceritaccipiendum,neoccisohodieadultero reservet et post dies filiam occidat, vel contra: debet enim prope uno ictu et uno impetuutrumqueoccidere,aequali iraadversusutrumque sumpta.Quod sinonaffectavit, sed,dumadulterumoccidit, profugit fulia et interpositis horis adprehensa est a patre qui persequebatur, in continenti,videbuturoccidisse.83Paul. Coll. 4, 2, 6–7. Sed si filiam non interfecerit, sed solum adulterum, homicidii reus est. Et siintervallofiliaminterfecerit,tandundemest,nisipersecutusillaminterfecerit:continuationeenimanimivideturlegisautorictatefecisse.84Pap.Coll.4,8,1.Cumpatrilexregiadederitinfiliumvitaenecisquepotestatem,quodbonumfuitlegeconprehendi,utpotestas fieretetiam filiamoccidendi,velismihi rescribere;nam scire cupio.Responditnumquidexcontrariopraestatnobisargumentumhaecadiectio,utnonvideaturlexnonhabentidedisse,sedoccidieamadulteroiussisse,utvideaturmaioreaequitateductusadulterumoccidisse,cumnecfiliaepepercerit?85AszövegeredetiségétilletőenlásdRabello216.


hischildren,respondsthatthelawdoesnotvestthefatherwithnewpower,instead,it obliges him to kill his daughter too togetherwith theman committing adulterybecause thereby—i.e., if he does not pardon his daughter either—he acts withgreater equity. The questionmight arise why it is necessary to discuss this legalinstitutionindetailsintheDigestandtheCollatio.Asithasbecomeapparentfromtheabove,thefather’siusvitaeacnecisterminatedinthe4thc.alreadyandcarefulcompilersdeletedalmostallreferencesto iudiciumdomesticumnecessarilyrelatedto it. Thus, it became indispensable to maintain lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis,which continued to operate now without ius vitae ac necis arising from patriapotestas.

Ius occidendi that may be exercised over the daughter caught in the act ofadultery is an organic part of patria potestas. Probably, here they applied thecriminal lawprinciple thatpunishment—in thepresent case: killing—ofoffenderscaught in the act (manifesti) was permittedwithout proceedings too.86 This rightwouldcontinuetoholdagainstamarrieddaughtertoo,evenifhisfatherhadgivenherinmaritimanum,whichisprobablyconnectedwiththeprovisionsoflexIuliadeadulteriis coercendis that restrictedmanus. Namely, according to leges regiae, thehusbandjudged,intheconsiliumdomesticumtogetherwithrelatives,overhiswife’sactstobepunishedbydeathsuchasadulteryanddrinkingwine.87 If,however,hehadcaughtherwifeintheactofadultery(inadulteriouxoremtuamsiprehendisses),accordingtoCato,hecouldkillherwithimpunity(impune)andwithoutanyspecialproceedings(sineiudicio).88ThelexIuliadeadulteriiscoercendis,however,deprivedthe husband from this right, even in the case where his wife was undermanus;therebyAugustusweakenedmanusandadjustedittothecurrentconditionsoftheage.89 He argued that whereas father’s love encouraged him to give pardon, ahusband’srageurgedhimtotakehastyrevenge.90Ifthehusbandneverthelesskilledhiswifecaughtintheactofadultery,hehadtoaccountforhisactunderlexCorneliadesicariis.91

Thefather’siusvitaeacnecisremaineduntoucheduntilthe4thc.A.D.inspiteofminororgreaterlegalorout‐of‐lawrestrictions.Constantinespeaksaboutiusvitaeac necis still as a living legal institution.92 In 365, this right of the pater familias

86Kunkel,1966,p.240.87Dion.Hal.2,25.88Gell. 10,23,4.VerbaMarciCatonisadscripsiexorationequae inscribiturDedote, inqua idquoquescriptum est, inadulteriouxoresdeprehensas ius fuissemaritisnecare: ’Vir’ inquit ’cumdivotium fecit,mulieri iudex pro censore est, imperium quod videtur habet, si quid perverse taetreque factum est amuliere;multiatur si vinum bibit; si cum alieno viro probri quid fecit, condemnatur.’ De iure autemoccidentiitascriptumest:’Inadulteriouxoremtuamsiprehendisses,sineiudicioimpunenecares;illare,siadulteraressivetuadulterare,digitononaudeturcontingere,nequeiusest.’89Kunkel,1966,p.237.90Pap.D.48,5,23 (22),4. Ideoautempatri,nonmaritomulieremetomnemadulterumremissumestoccidere, quod plerumque pietas paterni nominis consilium pro liberis capit: ceterummariti calor etimpetusfaciledecernentisfuitrefrenandus.91Pap.Coll.4,10,1.Simaritusuxoremsuam inadulteriodeprehensamoccidit,an in legemdesicariisincidat, quaero. Respondit: nulla parte legismarito uxorem occidere conceditur: quare aperte contralegemfecisseeumnonambigitur.92CTh.4,8,6.Libertatiamaioribustantumimpensumest,utpatribus,quibusiusvitaeinliberosnecisquepotestaspermissaest,eriperelibertatemnonliceret.


weakened to pure punitive power; the emperor’s decree determined the father’sdutythatheshouldreprimandyoungpeoplefortheirblunders,andshouldpreventthem from committing further faults.93With a few changes, Iustinianus borrowedConstantine’s text from Codex Theodosianus. However, he made such changesspecificallywithregardtoiusvitaeacnecisashementioneditmerelyasthepowerthatthepaterfamiliasusedtobeentitledto.94ThisclearlyrevealsthatbytheageofIustinianus ius vitae ac necis as a legal institution had long become extinct, andapplicationoftheprovisionssetforththereinwassubjecttocriminallawregulation.

II.Iusexponendiandiusvitaeacnecisexercisedovernewborninfantshadbeencontainedfromtheoutsetbypatriapotestas.AlexregialefttolateragesunderthenameRomulusobligedthepaterfamiliastobringupeverymalechildandfirstbornfemalechild,and forbadehimtokillchildrenyounger than threeyears,except fordeformedchildren immediatelyaftertheirbirth. Itdidnot forbidexpositionof thelatter either, however, it set the condition that they had to be shown to fiveneighbours. On those who might not comply with this law, it imposed thepunishment of confiscating half of their property.95 This norm,which belonged tothesystemofsacrallaw,hadatonetimeactuallyrestrictedpatriapotestas,yet,lateronwe can findno reference to its application—especiallywith regard to applyingforfeitureofpropertyassanctioninsuchcases.

Afterthat,welearnfromCiceroofaprovisionoftheTwelveTableLaw,whichprobably not only allowed but ordered the expositio of deformed children: ”Citonecatus tamquamexXII tabulis insignisaddeformitatempuer.”96 Just asRomulus’slexregiadidnotforbidexpositionofdeformedchildren,thenormfromtheTwelveTable Law left to us fromCicero’sDe legibus also permits,what ismore, perhapsorderstheirdestruction.Legesregiaeprovidesforexpositionofchildren,theTwelveTable Law for killing children, however, presumably these phrases in thesesources—even if they are not used as synonyms—denote acts with identicaloutcome in termsof the child’s fate.For, in the caseofdeformedchildrennobodythoughtofadoptingandbringingthemup,whichcanbeattributedtopracticalandreligious causes. In Roman thinking, a deformed child was considered prodigium,whichthecommunityhadtobegetridofduringprocuratioprodigii.Romanscalledtheusualorder,reposeoftheworldpaxdeum,whichmeantgods’peacefulrelationtomen,and if thisorderwasupset, itcouldbealwaysattributedtogodssteppingoutofthisrepose.97Breakingdownofthecosmicorder,soeveryextraordinary,neweventwasconsideredprodigium.98Theetymologyofthewordisdubious;inWalde–

93C.9,15,1.Incorrigendisminoribusproqualitatedilictisenioribuspropinquistribuimuspotestatem,utquosadvitaedecoradomesticaelaudisexemplanonprovocant,saltemcorrectionismedicinacompellat.Nequenosinpuniendismorumvitiispotestateminimmensumextendivolumus,sediurepatrioauctoritascorrigatpropinquiiuveniserratumetprivataanimadversionecompescat.94C.8,46,10.Libertatiamaioribustantumimpensumest,utpatribus,quibusiusvitaeinliberosnecisquepotestasolimeratpermissa,eriperelibertatemnonliceret.95Dion.Hal.2,15.96XIItab.4,1.(Cic.leg.3,8,19)97ThomasKöves‐Zulauf,Bevezetésarómaivallásésmondatörténetébe.(IntroductionintotheHistoryofRomanReligionandsaga),Budapest,1995,p.61.98ClemensZintzen,Prodigiumin”DerKleinePauly”,München,1979,IV,pp.1151–1153.


Hofmann’s interpretationprodigiumcomes fromprod‐aio,99 accordinglyprodigiummeans foretelling or forecastring. This approach does not seem to be acceptablebecause “prodigium itself does not declare anything”100, actually, needs to beinterpreted, that iswhytheyusedtheassistanceofpontifexes, theSibyllabooksorharuspexes.101Thereisamoreproperinterpretationclaimingthatthewordcomesfromthecompoundprod‐agere,soprodigiumisnothingelsethan”breakingthroughthis shell, supernatural forces hiding behind the surface come forth, becomemanifest”.102Wheneverprodigiumappeared,beitofaprivateorstatekind,afteritsmeaninghadbeen foundout, that is, interpreted,procuratiohadtobecarriedout,upontheproposalmadeagainbythe interpreters; if thesameprodigium recurredmore frequently, the pontifices always ordered the same conciliation.103 (Forexample, ifstonerainwas falling,novemdialesacrumhadtobeheld.104)Deformedchildren had to be destroyed105, and children born on an ominous day wereconsideredprodigiumtoo.106SuetondescribesthatonthedayofBritannicus’sdeathstoneswerethrownatthetemples,altarswereturnedover,theLaresweredrivento the street, and children were exposed. The procuratio of deformed childrenconsideredprodigiumwasusually carriedoutbykillingor exposition;however, itshould be added that in these cases exposition always meant that the child wasdestinedtodie,theoutcomeofthetwoactswaseventuallyidentical.Theprocuratiohadtobealwaysbloodless,thereforetheyperformeditbydrowning.107

Data on newer regulation of ius exponendi are available from a much laterperiod, the4thc.A.D.only,so it ispossiblethat thiselementofpatriapotestashadnotbeenconsiderablylimiteduntilthen.Expositionofchildrencouldbeattributed,asamatterof fact,notonly toreligiouscauses, in thisperiodeither.Likewise, thefathercouldexposethechildthatitwasnotwillingtoacknowledgeashisownduetothemother’sallegedorrealinfidelityorthathedidnotwanttobringupbecauseofhispovertyorothereconomicreasons.Inthesecasesthechildwasnotmeanttoperish;theyexposeditataplacewhereotherscouldeasilyfindit.108Asamatteroffact, we know of cases where a child, having been admitted, was meant andinstructed to be a prostitute or gladiator (ad servitutem aut ad lupanar).109 It

99Alois–Hofmann Walde, Johann Baptist, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I–II, Heidelberg,1954,II,p.368.100 Köves‐Zulauf,1995,p.62.101 Zintzen,1979,p.1153.102 Köves‐Zulauf,1995,p.62.103 KurtLatte,RömischeReligionsgeschichte,München,1967,p.204.104 Liv.1,33,4;30,38,9.InPalatio lapidibuspluit, idprodigiummorenovemdialisacro,ceterahostiismaioribusexpiata.105 Liv.27,37,6;31,12,7;39,22,5.106 Suet.Cal. 5.Quodefunctus estdie, lapidata sunt templa, subversaedeumareae,Laresquibusdamfamiliaresinpublicumabiecti,partusexpositi.107 Sen. ira 1, 15. Portentosos fetus extinguimus, liberos quoque, si debilesmonstrosique editi sunt,mergimus.Tib.2,5,79.Prodigiaindomitismergesubaequoribus.108 Cf.Fest.s.v.Lactariacolumnainforoolitoriodicta,quodibiinfanteslactealendosdeferebant.109 Lact. inst.6,20,18;MichaelMemmer,Adservitutemautad lupanar ... in”ZeitschriftderSavigny‐StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte,RomanistischeAbteilung”,108,1991,pp.21–93.


occurred that the fathermet and got familiarwith his formerly exposeddaughternowasaprostitute.110Severalofthemwereafflictedandforcedtobeg.111

SourcesfromtheagebeforeConstantinusdonotprovideauniformpictureonthe legal statusof exposed children. InPlautus’s andTerence’splays exposedandthen admitted children keep their free status.112 In Plautus’s comedy Casina, theexposed female child was admitted by the libertina Cleostrata, who gave her thenameCasina. Casina, having grownup, became thewife of Eutyrichus alsohavingfree status. InCistellariabyPlautus, theprocuressMelaenisadmittedandbroughtup the exposed Selenium born as a free person, who later married the freeAlcesimarchus. In Terence’sHeautontimorumenos, Antiphila, whowas exposed byhismother, Sostrata, kept his free status, andmarried the also free Clinia. At thesametimeitisbeyonddoubtthatseveralexposedchildrenwereforcedtoliveasaslave.113 Sueton provides information first onM. Antonius Gnipho, whowas bornfreeinGaul(ingenuus),however,wasexposedasachild,andwasthenliberatedandeducated by the personwho brought him up. After that hementions that Gniphowas a highly talented man with outstanding power of memory, who acquirederudition in bothLatin andGreek.114The second source is aboutC.Melissusbornalsofree(ingenuus)inSpoletium,whowasexposedinhischildhoodduetoconflictsbetween the parents.115 Thanks to the personwho brought him up and admittedhim,hewasgiventraininginhighersciences,andwasrecommendedtoMaecenasasagrammarian.Maecenasmadefriendswithhim,andalthoughhismothersupportedhis son’s freedom too—using the claim called adsertio libertatis—Melissusnevertheless remained in statu servitutis because he deemed it more than hisoriginaldescent.Weiss interpreted thephrases ingenuusnatus andmanumissusasopposites,andderivedGnipho’sslavestatustherefrom.116AccordingtoCoril,inthistext in servitute denotesmerely ade facto status and not that the child had been

110 Min.Fel.31,4;Iust.apol.1,27;Boswell,JohnEastburn:ExpositioandOblatio.TheAbandonmentofChildren in theAncientandMedievalFamily. AmericanHistorical Review89. 1984. pp. 10–33. Incestcomprised thesinglemostcommonobjectionofChristianmoralists toexpositio,andnosolution to thisproblempresented itself.Few, ifany fathersof thechurchobjected toabandonmentasaderelictionofparentalduty.IntherelativelyfewplaceswhereearlyChristianliteraturetouchedonthepractice,whichit describes as common, authors complained of the possibility that parentsmight unknowingly use asprostituteschildrentheyonceabandoned.111 Sen. contr. 10, 4. Quidam expositos debilitabat et debilitatos mendicare cogebat ac mercedemexigebatabeis.112 Memmer,1991,p.26.113 Sen.contr.10,4,13.Deinde,anhocnonlicueritillifacere.Licuit,inquit,expositiinnullonumerosunt,servisunt.114 Suet. gramm. 7. M. Antonius Gnipho, ingenuus in Gallia natus sed expositus, a nutritore suomanumissus institutusque fuisse dicitur ingeniimagni,memoriae singularis, necminus Graece quamLatinedoctus.115 Suet.gramm.21.C.Melissus,Spoletinatusingenuus,sedobdiscordiumparentumexpositus,curaetindustriaeducatorissuialtiorastudiapercepit,acMaecenatiprogrammaticomuneridatusest.Cuicumsegratumetacceptuminmodumamicivideret,quamquamasserentematre,permansittamenisstatuservitutispraesentemquecondicionemveraeoriginianteposuit.116 Egon Weiss, Peregrinische Manzipationsakte, in ”Zeitschrift der Savigny‐Stiftung fürRechtsgeschichte,RomanistischeAbteilung”,37,1917,pp.136–176.


madeservusalsodeiure.117WatsonbelievesthatSuetoniusdoesnotusethephrasesstatus servitutis or manumissus as terminus technicus, so it would have beenunnecessarytopayspecialattention to them.118Manumissusnotnecessarilyrefersto status servitutis since theyused remancipatioormanumissioalso in the caseoffilius inmancipium.119The fathercouldreclaimhisexposedchild fromthenutritorafterhavingreimbursedthecostsofalimentatio.120

Onthelegalstatusofchildrenbornfreeandthenexposed,PlinytheYounger,propraetor of Bithynia and emperor Traianus exchanged letters. The letterswerepresumablydated inPlinius’s secondyear inoffice, in111.121 Inhis letter,Pliniuspresents the issue of the status and alimentatio of children born free and thenexposed, called threptos, as a problem affecting the entire province to emperorTraianus,ashehasnotfoundarulethatapplieseitherexpresslytoBithyniaorthewholeempireandbelieves thathecouldnotbesatisfiedwithotherexamples inamatter that can be decided solely by the emperor’s authority. Although he knowsabout certain epistulae and edicta, such as for example those issued by emperorsAugustus, Vespasianus and Titus for Andania, Sparta and Achaia, they all containparticularrulesonly,andthereforecannotbeappliedtoPliny’sprovince.Otherwise,hedoesnotsendTraianusthecopiesofthedocumentsreferredtobecausetheyareprobably available in the emperor’s archives, which much better text.122 In hisresponse letter,Traianusprecisely formulates thequestionraisedbyPliny:so, theissue addressed concerns children born free who have been exposed by theirparentsandthenhavebeenadmittedandbroughtupasslavesbyothers.Traianusmentions that his predecessors have indeed settled this issuewith general effectextending to each province, and refers to Domitianus’s two epistulae written toproconsulesAvidiusNegrinusandArmeniusBrocchus,whichareperhapsnottobefully ignored, however, as they do not have a general scope, cannot be applied toBithynia. Traianus grants the opportunity ofadsertio in libertatem, and refuses togivethenutritortherighttoclaimreimbursementofthecostsofalimentatioandius

117 GeorgesCornil,Contributionàl’étudedelapatriapotestas,Paris,1897,p.428.118 Watson,1967,p.171.119 MaxKaser,DasrömischePrivatrechtI–II,München,1971–1975,I,p.65.120 Sen.contr.9,3.Expositumquiagnoverit,solutisalimentisrecipiat.121 Plin.epist.10,65.C.PliniusTraiano Imperatori.Magna,domine,etadtotamprovinciampertinensquaestioestdecondicioneetalimentiseorum,quosvocant threptus inquaegoauditisconstitutionibusprincipumquianihilinveniebamautproprium,autuniversale,quodadBithynosferretur,consulendumteexistimavi,quidobservari velles;neque enimputaviposseme in eo,quodauctoritatem tuamposceret,exemplisessecontentum.Recitabaturautemapudmeedictum,quoddicebaturdiviAugusti,adAndaniampertinens;recitataeepistulaeetdiviVespasianiadLacedaemoniosetdiviTitiadeosdemetAchaeos,etDomitianiadAvidiumNigrinumetArmeniumBrocchumproconsules,idemadLacedaemonios,quaeideotibinonmisi,quiaetparumemendataetquaedamnoncertaefideividebantur,etquiaveraetemendatainscriniistuisessecredebam.122 Plin.epist.10,66.TraianusPlinio.Quaestioista,quaepertinetadeos,quiliberinatiexpositi,deindesublati a quibusdam et in sevitute educati sunt, saepe tractata est, nec quicquam invenitur incommentariiseorum,quiantemefuerunt,quodadomnesprovincissitconstitutum.EpistulaesanesuntDomitianiadAvidiumNegrinumetArmeniumBrocchum,quaefortassedebeantobservari:sedintereasprovincias,dequibusrescripsit,nonestBinthya.Et ideonecadsertationemdenegandam iis,quiexeiusmodicausainlibertatemvindicabuntur,puto,nequeipsamlibertatemredimendampretioalimentorum.


retentionisthatservestoensurethat.Thequestionariseswhomayenforcepleaforfreedom.Asitwasvindicatioinlibertatemandnotvindicatioinpatriampotestatemthat Traianus permitted, according to Cornil, it was not the parents but the childitself thatwas entitled to the right ofvindicatio.123 Yet, because a child living as aslavewasnotallowedtoinitiatealawsuit,actiontakenbytheadsertorwasneededto represent the child in the lawsuit.124 Consequently, Traianus sets out from thechild’sstatus libertatis that, accordingly, cannotbe lost.125Thecostsofalimentatioare not be reimbursed because in the present case regaining freedom is notransomingfromstatussevitutisbutliberationfromslavery.126

According to Scaevola’s fragment, which also bears decisive significance indeterminingthelegalstatusofexposedchildren,aRomancitizendivorcedhiswifeandmarriedagain.127Thecastoffwifeexposedthechild,whowasbroughtupbyathirdparty.Inhislastwillandtestamentthefather,ashedidnotknowifhissonwasaliveornot,didnotnamehimashisinheritoranddidnotdisinherithimeither.Followinghis father’s death, the son, once hehad been recognised byhismotherand father’smother, tookpossessionof theestateas legitimusheres. InScaevola’sview, the lastwillwas invalidbecausethesonwasunderpatriapotestas,even ifhisfatherdidnotknowaboutit.128AccordingtoPaulus,theexposedchildwillretainitsstatuslibertatis,evenifitmightnotbeawareofitandmightconsideritselfaslave.129

In the rescriptum of emperors Diocletianus and Maximianus, dated 295,addressed to Rhodonus, the following can be read:130 Rhodonus admitted andbroughtupagirlbornfreeandexposed,andaftershehadgrownup,hemeanthertomarryhis son.Beforeentering into themarriage, thenatural father tookactionandclaimedtoreleasehisdaughter.Thefatherretainedhispotestasoverthechild,and he could have enforced it through praeiudicium de patria potestate.131 The

123 Cornil,1897,p.430.124 Memmer,1991,p.33.125 See alsoMartin Bang,DieHerkunft der römisches Sklaven II.DieRechtsgründe derUnfreiheit, in”MitteilungendeskaiserlichdeutschenarchäologischenInstituts.Röm.Abt.”,27,1912.126 Memmer,1991,p.34.127 Scaev.D.40,4,29.Uxorempraegnantemrepudiaveratetaliamduxerat:priorenixafiliumexposuit.Hicsublatusabalioeducatusestnominepatrisvocitatususqueadvitaetempuspatristamabeoquamamatre, an vivorum numero esset, ignorabatur; mortuo patre testamentoque eius, quo filius nequeexheredatusnequeheresinstitutussit,recitatofiliusetamatreetabaviapaternaadgnitushereditatempatrisabintestatoquasilegitimuspossidet.Quaesitumesthiquitestamentolibertatemacceperuntutrumliberianservisint.Responditfiliumquidemnihilpraeiudiciipassumfuisse,sipatereumignoravit,etideo,cum in potestate et ignorantis patris esset, testamentum non valere. Servi autem manumissi si perquinquennium in libertatemorati sunt, semel datam libertatem infirmari contrarium studium favorelibertatisest.128 Gai.inst.2,123.129 Paul.D.22,6,1,2.Siquisnesciatsecognatumesse,interduminiure,interduminfactoerrat.namsiliberumseesseetexquibusnatussitsciat,iuraautemcognationeshaberesenesciat,iniureerrat:atsiquis(forteexpositus)quorumparentiumessetignoret,fortasseetserviatalicuiputansseservumesse,infactomagis,quaminiureerrat.130 C.5,4,16.Patrem,quifiliamexposuit,atnuncadultamsumptibusetlaboretuofactammatrimonioconiungifiliodesiderantisfaverevotoconvenit.Quisirenitatur,alimentorumsolutioniinhocsolummodocasupareredebet.131 Memmer,1991,p.38.


question,however, concernedonly the issuewhether the fathershould reimbursethe costs of alimentatio. In the rescriptum, the rulers decided that if the naturalfathershouldbeagainstconclusionofmarriagebetweenhisdaughterandthefosterfather’s son, then he should reimburse the costs of alimentatio, if, however, heagreedtoit,thenhewouldbeexemptedfromreimbursingthecosts.

An exposed slave child also retains its innate status servitutis. The issue ofownership over the child was regulated by emperor Alexander Serverus in hisrescriptumwritten to A. Claudius in 224:132 if the child was exposed without thedominus being aware of it or against his will, he was entitled to the right ofvindicatio, however, he had to reimburse the nutritor for his costs. On the otherhand,ifthedominushimselfhadtheslavewoman’schildexposed,thenhewouldnotbegranted the rightofrepetitio. Inaccordancewith theprincipleofderelictio, theslave child so exposed will retain its status, yet, will become a child having nodominus,andthecollectorwillobtainownershipoverhimthroughoccupatio.133

Reference to the exposed child’s slave status can be found also among thecontractsofthewaxedboardsofDacia:134on17March139,inKartum,purchaseofaslavewas entered into betweenMaximusBatonis andDasiusVersonis, its subjectwasanapproximatelysix‐year‐oldslavegirlcalledPassia.Thesellerwasobligedtoname the origin of the slave in negotiating the purchase and sale135 as it highlyinfluencedwhatoccupationshewassuitablefor;forthisreason,theaedilisiedictumalsoobligedthosewhosoldslavesonthemarkettonametheirnatio.136Mommsenclaimsthatthephraseemptasportellariaimpliesthattheownerhadpurchasedthegirl’smother,andwasgiventheslavegirl,Passiaasapresentsincesportellameanspresent.137Weiss’s interpretation seems to bemore probable, he asserts that thesellerhimself hadpurchased the girl as an exposed child, andheproves it by thefollowing:138 the papyruses reveal that the phrase sportellarius is identical withkoptriaireios139, which always denotes the exposed child. Undoubtedly, sportellameansasmallbasket,asinHieronymus’sVulgataregardingtheexpositionofMosescanberead.140Fiscella,whichisthedeminutivumoffiscusthatoriginallymeantbasket,isthesynonymofsportella,andreferstothecustomthatabasketwasoftenusedwhenexposingachild.Therefore,sportellariameansafemalechildexposedinabasket;itispossibletogetclosertothisinterpretationbycertainGreeksources,whichassertthatachildwasexposedalsoinsomekindofvessel(ostrakon,enkhystria).

132 C.8,51(52),1.Siinvitovelignorantetepartusancillaeveladscripciaeaxpositusest,repetereeumnon prohiberis. Sed restitutio eius, non a fure vindicaveris, ita fiet, ut, si qua in alindo vel forte addiscendumartificiumiusteconsumptafuerint,restitueris.133 Memmer,1991,p.40.134 FIRAIII.284.=CIL III.937.MaximusBatonispuellamnominePassiam,siveeaquoalionomineest,annorumcircitersexplusminus,emptasprotellariaemitmancipioqueaccepitdeDasioVerzonisPirustaexKavieretiov/vducentisquinque…135 OttoLenel,Das„EdictumPerpetuum”,Leipzig,1927,p.554.Clausuladenationepronuntianda.136 Elemér Pólay, A dáciai viaszostáblák szerződései. (Contracts of the tabulae ceratae from Dacia),Budapest,1972,p.146;Ulp.D.21,1,31,21.Nationemcuiusqueinvenditionepronuntiaredebent.137 Pólay,1972,p.146.138 Weiss,1917,p.160.139 Aristoph.ran.1190.140 Exod.2,3.Sumpsitfiscellamscripeam…posuitqueintusinfantulumetexposuiteum.


Constantine’s law dated 17 April 331 brought significant change in the legalstatus of exposed children, for it extended the regulationpertaining to the fate ofslavewomen’s children, adopted byAlexandrus Severus, to free children.141 Thus,the father who has exposed his child, will lose his potestas over the child, andthereby the right to reclaim the child.Thenutritor freelydecides the statusof theadmitted child, irrespective if the childwas born as a free person or a slave. Thephraseretineatsubeodemstatu,quemapudsecollectumvolueritagitareshowsthatthe father was not given the opportunity of vindicatio in libertatem or adsertiolibertatis.142Itisquiteclearthatthislawprovidedhighlyeffectiveprotectionforthepersonwhobroughtuptheexposedchild.

Restrictionorprohibitionofiusexponendiwasimplementedontheleveloflawratherlate.InFebruary374,emperorsValentinianus,ValensandGratianusorderedtoimposedeathpenaltyforkillingchildren.143AmonthlaterValentinianusdeclaredthat exposition of childrenwas to be punished.144AsValentinianus referred to anearlier punishment, it cannot be ruled out that he renewed a prohibition ofexpositionthathadexistedforalongtime.Onthecontrary,itisalsopossible—ifweinterpret expositio as a form of necatio, which was not alien from post‐classicalthinking at all—that Valentinianus referred to the prohibition of killing childrendatedFebruaryof the sameyear and the itemof penalty imposed thereon.145Thelatter standpoint can be supported by the argument that the addressee of bothconstitutiones was the same Probus praefectus praetorio. The item of punishmentcannotbeknown fromthe lattercontitutio.According toMemmer, the fact that in442 a person who exposed his child was certainly not sentenced to death yet isconfirmed by the proof that the tenth canon of theConciliumVasense held in thesame year dealt with ecclesiastical punishment of those who exposed theirchildren.146 Namely, if a regulation imposing death penalty on exposition hadexisted, then the discussion of ecclesiastical punishment would have becomecompletely unnecessary.147 The prohibition of exposition of children of 374presumablyappliedtothepater familias’sownchildrenonlybecausethis lawalsoregulated the dominus’s rights over the exposed colonus and slave child.148 Basedthereonthedominusorthepatronuswhomeantthechildtodieandforthisreason

141 CTh. 5, 9, 1. Quicumque puerum vel puellam, proiectam de domo patris vel domini voluntatescientiaque,collegeritacsuisalimentisadroburprovexerit,eundemretineatsubeodemstatu,quemapudse collectum voluerit agitare, hoc est sive filium sive servum eum esse maluerit: omni repetitonisinquietudinepenitus submovendaeorumqui servosaut liberos scientespropriavoluntatedomo recensnatosabiecerint.142 Memmer,1991,p.65.143 CTh.9,14,1;C.9,16,8.Siquisnecandiinfantispiaculumadgressusadgressavesit,sciatsecapitalisupplicioessepuniendum.144 C. 8, 51 (52), 2. pr.Unusque subolem suamnutriat.Quid si exponendamputaveri,animadversioniquaecostitutaestsubiacebit.145 Bonfante,1925,p.112;Kaser,1971,p.79.146 Sacrorumconciliorumnovaetamplissimacollectio,Ed.Mansi,Graz,1960,VI.455.Sanesiquiesposthacdiligentissimamsanctionemexpositorumhocordinecollectorumrepetitorvelcalumniatorextiterit,uthomicidaecclesiasticadistinctionefeiatur.147 Memmer,1991,p.70.148 C.8,51 (52),2,1.Sednecdominisvelpatronisrepetendiaditumrelinqiumus,siab ipsisexpositosquodammodoadmortem voluntasmisericordiaeamica collegerit:necenimdicere suumpoterit,quempereuntemcontempsit.


exposeditwasnotentitledtotherightofreclaimingit.In412,emperorsHonoriusandTheodosiusenteredasimilarregulationintoforce.149Comparedtothepreviousregulation, it appears as a new element that the regulation makes admitting thechildsubjecttomeetingtwoconditions:ithadtotakeplacebeforethebishopandadocument had to bemade thereon.According toMemmer, thismakes it probablethat the collector had the right in accordancewith the normof 331 to decide thestatusofthechild.150

InaccordancewithIustinianus’sregulationof529coveringtheentireempire,itwasprohibited tosink theexposedchild to the fateofcolonusorslave,nomatterwhatstatushewasfrom.151So, itensuredfreedomtoallexposedchildren,eventoslave children who were caused to be exposed by the dominus. It forbids thecollector to gain advantage from bringing up the child; his act is deemedofficiumpietatis.152 He confirmed the provisions set forth in this regulation in the sameyear.153 In 541, he expressis verbis guaranteed the freedom of exposed childrentoo154,andheallowedthedominustoprovehisownershipoverthechildonlyintheevent that thechildhadbeenexposedwithouthimbeingawareof itor inspiteofhiswill.

Coming to the end of this analysis, it is necessary to add a few remarks insummaryonthetwolegalinstitutionsofpatriapotestas,discussedinthispaper.Ius

149 CTh.5,9,2.Nullumdominisvelpatronisrepetendiaditumrelinqiumus,siexpositosquodammodoadmortem voluntas misericordiae amica collegerit: nec enim dicere suum poterit, quem pereuntemcontempsit; simodo testisepiscopalis subscriptio fuerit subsecuta,dequanullapenitusad securitatempossitessecunctatio.150 Memmer,1991,p.70.151 C.8,51(52),3.pr.1.Sancimusneminilicere,siveabingenuisgenitoribuspuerparvulusprocreatussivealibertinaprogeniesiveservlilicondicionemaculatusexpositussit,eumpueruminsuumdominiumvindicare sive nomine dominii sive adscripticiae cive colonariae condicionis: sed neque his, qui eosnutriendos sustulerunt, licentiam concedipenitus (cumquadamdistintione) eos tollere et educationemeorum procurare, sive masculi sint sive feminae, ut eos vel loco servorum aut colonorum autadcsripticiorumhabeant.Sednullodiscriminehabitohi,quiabhuiusmodihominibuseducatisunt,liberiet ingernui appareant et sibi adquirant et in posteritatem suam vel extranenos heredes omnia quaehabierint,quomodo voluerint, transmittant,nullamacula vel servitutis veladscripticiaeaut colonariaecondicionis imbuti: nec quasi patronatus iura in rebus eorum concedi, sed in omnen terram, quaeRomanaedicionisuppositaest,haecobtinere.152 C.8,51(52),3,2.Nequeenimoporteteos,quiabinitioinfantesabegeruntetmortisfortespemcircaeoshabuerunt, incertos constitutos, siqui eos susceperunt,hos iterumad se revocare conari et servlilinecessitati subiugare: neque hi, qui eos pietatis ratione suadente sustulerunt, ferendi sunt snuo suammutatnessententiamet inservitutemeosretrahentes, licetab initohuiumodicogitationemhabentesadhocprosiluerint,nevideanturquasimercimoniocontractoitapietatisofficiumgerere.153 C.1,4,24.154 N.153,1.Quicunqueigiturinecclesiis,velvicis,velaliislocisexpositiprobantur,eosomnibusmodisliberos esse iubemus, licetactorimanifestaprobatio suppetat,quapersonam illamad suumdominiumpertinereostendat.Seenim legibusnostrispraeceptumest,utserviaegrotantes,quiadominisneglecti,quumdevaletudineeorumdesperarent,tamquamcuraadominisdigninonhabitiomninoinlibertatemrapiantur,quantomagiseos,qui in ipsovitae initioaliorumhominumpietatirelicti,etab ipsisenutritisunt, in iniustam servitutem trahi non patiemur? His igitur et sanctissimum Thessalonicensiumarchiepiscopum et sanctam dei ecclesiam, quae sub illo constituta est, et gloriam tuam opem ferre,libertatemqueillisadiudicaresancimus.Nequeilli,quihaecfaciunt,legumnostrarumpoenaseffugient,utqui omni inhumanitate et crudelitate repleti sunt, domnique homicido tanto deteriore, quantomiserioribusidafferunt.


vitae ac necis, that is, the punitive power of pater familias against an adult childmeant a right that actually existed until the 4th c. A.D., based onwhich the fatherhimselfcouldkillhischildren.Theexerciseof thisright,however,wasconfinedtomeetingcertainrulesofprocedureandlimits.Consequently,hehadtoconducttheproceedingswithintheframeworksofiudiciumdomesticum, inwhichtheconsiliumnecessariorum investigated the charge and heard the defence of the accused, and,then,intheeventthattheoffenceseemedtobeacrimethatdeserveddeathpenaltyindeed,itdecidedguiltbymajorityofthevotescast,whichdecisionhadabsolutelybindingforceuponthepaterfamilias.BylexIuliadeadulteriiscoercendis,Augustusfurthernarrowedthescopeofapplicationofiusvitaeacnecis.Iusexponendi,thatis,therightofthepaterfamiliasoverthenewborninfantwasalivinglegalinstitutionalso in practice until 374 A.D. Two sides of its exercise are distinguished. One ofthemisbasicallyecclesiastical,inthiscasetheexpositionofthechildasprocuratioprodigii was aimed at the child’s death and was not separated from killing thenewborninfant.Intheothercasethereasonwasmerelythatthefamilyorthepaterfamiliasdidnotwant to bringup the child; yet, they could reckon that somebodywouldfindandbringupthechild.Ifthelatteropportunityoccurred,thentheissueof thestatusof thebroughtupchildaroseasaquestion.During thecenturies thisshowedrathervariablepictureuntilthelawoftheageofIustinianreachedthestagewhereitensuredfreestatustoalmostallexposedandbroughtupchildren.

remarks on two aspects of patria potestas in …oaji.net/articles/2015/2064-1432810151.pdf ·...

Documents