PATRIA POTESTAS OR MURDER IN THE FAMILY Mirkovic, Miroslava
Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu,
2015, 2015-00-00, 2015-01-01, Letnik:
63, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Patria potestas appears in the tradition in two aspects: as the father’s right to put his son to death and as the right to dispose of the family property. All examples concerning the murder of the ...son (or daughters) known to the Roman authors are from the time of the Roman Republic. The father’s right to dispose of the property
even when the son is an adult lasted until the Later Empire. In a detailed study W. V.
Harris limited his disucussion to ten examples of the son’s murder and three of the
daughter. They are mostly not qualified as the ius vitae ac necis by the Roman authors. It is important to stress: a) That these examples mainly illustrate the father’s
right in charge as the high magistrate. In putting their sons to death the fathers magistrates did not use the vitae necisque potestas of the father but the authority of
supreme state officers. The crimes of which the sons were accused belonged not to
family affairs but to offenses against the military discipline and State interests. b)
The only condition in applying the vitae necisque potestas was a moral one, the existence of the iusta causa. Even then it was not unpunished, and in many cases the father went into exile. c) The father’s power existed only over legally born children
within a legal marriage. Legal marriage was the privilege of patricians until 444 BC.
That means that the patria potestas was originally limited only to patrician families.
Biological kinship was not a decisive factor in the restitution of the father – children
connection. d) The main right of the pater in the family was not to kill its members,
but to preserve his position in economic control and to dispose of the property which
was once common and eventually to control the moral behavior of the family members.
Among many thousand titles about Roman family1 only a few concern the extended family, aunts, uncles and cousins.2 They are seldom mentioned by the ancient authors. The inscriptions provide the main ...evidence in the research. Progress in study could be expected from the empirical research based on them. However few in number, they are important in defining the relations within the family. The pages that follow are dedicated to the study of matertera and amita in Liburnia. The inscriptions from Liburnia, the coastal zone of the northern Adriatic, deserve special attention, because Liburnians differ from other people in the province of Dalmatia in terms of their social structure. The women were dominant in the family and economy. The study is based on onomastics in the inscriptions. Nomen in Roman society passed along the male line. Mater, matertera and avunculus are biologically connected as children of the same parents and as they had common father, they must also have had a common family name. The same rule is to be expected in the parallel agnatic group on the father’s side. Pater, patruus and amita must have had the same family name. Different practice in the inscriptions from Liburnia, and in some cases from other parts of the Roman Empire, suggest a special relationship in the family and deserve comment. They will be analysed in the pages that follow.
In the agreement which followed the first war between Constantine and
Licinius and Constantine?s victory on the Campus Ardiensis, Licinius was
forced, as generally accepted, to surrender Illyricum ...where he was undisputed
ruler until 316. However he was not neutralized politically and reigned
together with Constantine between AD 316 and 324. Some kind of division of
the sphere of interest seems to have existed between them. Constantine, whose
movements in the Balkans are known from the places of editing laws, visited
only the western half, i.e. Illyricum after 316. If we follow the evidence of
the places and dates of the promulgation of Constantine?s laws, we can
consider the line dividing the region controlled by Constantine and that
under Licinius? command, running from the North to the South and leaving
Constantine the Pannonian provinces, Moesia I, Dacia Ripensis, Dacia
Mediterranea and Dardania, as well as Macedonia, with the legionary camps on
the Danube in Pannonia and Moesia I; the provinces on the East of that line,
Moesia II, Scythia Minor and Thracia belonged to the region in which Licinius
had command. However, there is evidence indicating that the territorial
division of the Balkans between Constantine and Licinius after the battle of
Cibalae was not strictly observed except on the Danube, in the zone where the
military camps were located. In spite of Constantine?s presence in Illyricum,
Licinius?s influence on the high commanders on the Danube never disappeared
nor did his presence in the provinces he lost after the Bellum Cibalense.
Licinius had the jubilee silver plates made for his decennalia in Naissus in
Dacia Mediterranea. The siver plates which have been produced in Naissus, in
the part of the Balkans which was under Constantine?s control, bear the
inscription LICINI AVGVSTE SEMPER VINCAS. The co-operation between
Constantine and Licinius concerned the defense of the frontiers and the
administration in both parts of the Empire, but it was not based on the
subordination of one to another as it was in the time of Diocletian who
created the system tetrarchy.
nema
In the agreement which followed the first war between Constantine and Licinius and Constantine’s victory on the Campus Ardiensis, Licinius was forced, as generally accepted, to surrender Illyricum ...where he was undisputed ruler until 316. However he was not neutralized politically and reigned together with Constantine between AD 316 and 324. Some kind of division of the sphere of interest seems to have existed between them. Constantine, whose movements in the Balkans are known from the places of editing laws, visited only the western half, i.e. Illyricum after 316. If we follow the evidence of the places and dates of the promulgation of Constantine’s laws, we can consider the line dividing the region controlled by Constantine and that under Licinius’ command, running from the North to the South and leaving Constantine the Pannonian provinces, Moesia I, Dacia Ripensis, Dacia Mediterranea and Dardania, as well as Macedonia, with the legionary camps on the Danube in Pannonia and Moesia I; the provinces on the East of that line, Moesia II, Scythia Minor and Thracia belonged to the region in which Licinius had command. However, there is evidence indicating that the territorial division of the Balkans between Constantine and Licinius after the battle of Cibalae was not strictly observed except on the Danube, in the zone where the military camps were located. In spite of Constantine’s presence in Illyricum, Licinius’s influence on the high commanders on the Danube never disappeared nor did his presence in the provinces he lost after the Bellum Cibalense. Licinius had the jubilee silver plates made for hisdecennaliain Naissus in Dacia Mediterranea. The siver plates which have been produced in Naissus, in the part of the Balkans which was under Constantine’s control, bear the inscription LICINI AVGVSTE SEMPER VINCAS. The co-operation between Constantine and Licinius concerned the defense of the frontiers and the administration in both parts of the Empire, but it was not based on the subordination of one to another as it was in the time of Diocletian who created the system tetrarchy.
The mutual relationship between two contemporary Christian authors, Jerome and Ambrose, has been discussed by modern scholars with differences in the conclusions about it. Jerome referred frequently ...to Ambrose in his literary work, including those records in which he thought on him without mentioning his name. Ambrose's writings does not contain a single word about Jerome. The fact that only Jerome mentioned Ambrose and himself was not mentioned by Ambrose means that it is not possible to discuss the personal relationship between the two, but only Jerome's opinion on Ambrose's work or his attitude to Ambrose's personality. We may safely assume that in order to protect himself against charges of being a follower of Origen, Jerome quoted other church fathers who followed Origen in their work, among others Ambrose.
O odnosu Hijeronima prema Ambroziju raspravljano je cesto u modernoj literaturi, s razlicitim rezultatom istrazivanja. Problem nastaje otuda, sto Hijeronim u tekstovima koji se direktno ili indirektno odnose na Ambrozija nije konsekventan: oni u kojima se Ambrozije navodi po imenu, su povoljni za Ambrozija; u onima u kojima se Ambrozijevo ime ne navodi, premda je sigurno da ce o njemu radi, Hijeronim pokazuje ocito neprijateljstvo. Hijeronim spominje Ambrozija 19 ili 22 puta, ako ce racunaju i oni pasazi u kojima se ime Ambrozija ne navodi. Kod prve grupe izvora, onih u kojima se Ambrozije hvali, Hijeronim zeli da pokaze da su se i jedan i drugi, zajedno s drugim uglednim crkvenim piscima u svom literarnom radu drzali istih crkvenih autoriteta. Ovi podaci poticu iz vremena kada je Hijeronim, kao pisac koji je u svom egzegetskom radu sledio Origena, bio u opasnosti da bude optuzen za origenizam. Ambrozije se spominje zajedno s Kiprijanom, Hilarijem iz Poatijea, Viktorinom i Eusebijem iz Vercele, dakle s onima koji su prevodili Origena ili se u izvesnoj meri drzali ucenja ovog velikog crkvenog teoreticara koji je pocetkom V veka proglasen za jeretika od malo znacajnih ali ortodoksnih hriscanskih pisaca. Cilj Hijeronima nije bio da hvali Ambrozija ili doprinese njegovoj slavi koja je bila nesumnjiva kada je u pitanju njegov crkveni autoritet, vec da skrene paznju na to, da nije samo on prevodio Origena i smatrao ga velikim teoreticarem hriscanstva i da ga je sledio u svom egzegetskom radu, vec da su to cinili i drugi znameniti episkopi njegova vremena. Hijeronim je nastojao da pokaze da bi napad na njega bio i napad na Ambrozija "cije su knjige pune Origenovih reci". Sve Hijeronimove neprijateljske aluzije na Ambrozija su u tekstovima u kojima ce Ambrozije ne spominje po imenu. Prvi koji je optuzio Hijeronima za neprijateljstvo prema Ambroziju bio je Rufin, prijatelj iz mladosti koji je 80-tih godina IV veka postao njegov ogorceni neprijatelj. On je skrenuo paznju na to da je Hijeronim mislio na Ambrozija kada je u Predgovoru za prevod dela Didima Slepog De spiritu sancto primetio da vise voli da bude tumac i prevodilac tudjeg dela, no da se kao neki pisci kiti tudjim perjem kao vrana koja ce ukrasava tudjim bojama. Na Ambrozija bi Hijeronim mislio u pasazu u kome optuzuje pisca dela O svetom duhu za neoriginalnost. U Expositio evangeli secundum Lucam Hijeronim bi mislio na Ambrozija kada govori o ptici koja se kiti tudjim perjem. Moglo bi se zakljuciti da Hijeronim u nameri da zastiti sebe kao pisca od optuzbe da je sledio Origena u svom egzegetskom radu, citirao Ambrozija i druge crkvene oce, Tertulijana Kiprijana, Eusebija, Hilarija i Hipolita, kao one koji su sledili Origena u svom delu. C druge strane neprijateljske aluzije na Ambrozija kao pisca bez originalnosti pokazivale bi licno neprijateljstvo prema Ambroziju. Ambrozije ne spominje Hijeronima u svom delu.
PDF
