Ancient Rome

=== Family ===
{{Main|Family in ancient Rome}}
[[File:Galla Placidia (rechts) und ihre Kinder.jpg|thumb|A [[gold glass]] portrait of a family from [[Roman Egypt]]. [[Greek language|The Greek inscription]] on the medallion may indicate either the name of the artist or the ''[[pater familias]]'' who is absent in the portrait.<ref>See {{Cite web |title=Masterpieces. Desiderius' Cross |url=http://www.bresciamusei.com/nsantagiulia.asp?nm=14&t=Masterpieces%2E+Desiderius%27+Cross |access-date=2 October 2016 |website=Fondazione Brescia Musei |archive-date=19 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211019100706/https://www.bresciamusei.com/nsantagiulia.asp?nm=14&t=Masterpieces.+Desiderius%27+Cross |url-status=dead }}. For a description of scholarly research on the Brescia Medallion, see Daniel Thomas Howells (2015). "[http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Late_Antique_Gold_Glass_online.pdf A Catalogue of the Late Antique Gold Glass in the British Museum (PDF).]" London: the British Museum (Arts and Humanities Research Council), p. 7. Accessed 2 October 2016. [[List of gold-glass portraits|gold glass portrait]] (most likely by an [[History of Alexandria|Alexandrian Greek]] due to [[Ancient Greek dialects|the Egyptian dialect of the inscription]]), dated 3rd century AD; Beckwith, John, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, Penguin History of Art (now Yale), 2nd edn. 1979, {{ISBN|0140560335}}, p. 25; Boardman, John ed., The Oxford History of Classical Art, 1993, OUP, {{ISBN|0198143869}}, pp. 338–340; Grig, Lucy, "Portraits, Pontiffs and the Christianization of Fourth-Century Rome", ''Papers of the British School at Rome'', Vol. 72, (2004), pp.&nbsp;203–230, {{JSTOR|40311081}}, p. 207; Jás Elsner (2007). "The Changing Nature of Roman Art and the Art Historical Problem of Style", in Eva R. Hoffman (ed), ''Late Antique and Medieval Art of the Medieval World'', 11–18. Oxford, Malden & Carlton: Blackwell Publishing. {{ISBN|978-1405120715}}, p. 17, Figure 1.3 on p. 18.</ref>]]
[[File:Rilievo funerario dei vibii, fine del I secolo ac..JPG|thumb|A funerary relief with members of the ''[[gens]]'' [[Vibia gens|Vibia]], late 1st century BC, [[Vatican Museums]]]]

The basic units of Roman society were households and families.{{Sfn|Duiker|Spielvogel|2001|page=[https://archive.org/details/worldhistoryto1500duik/page/146 146]}} Groups of households connected through the male line formed a family (''[[gens]]''), based on blood ties, a common ancestry or [[Adoption in ancient Rome|adoption]]. During the [[Roman Republic]], some powerful families, or ''[[Gens|Gentes Maiores]]'', came to dominate political life. Families were headed by their oldest male citizen, the ''[[pater familias]]'' (father of the family), who held lawful authority (''patria potestas'', "father's power") over wives, sons, daughters, and slaves of the household, and the family's wealth.{{Sfn|Duiker|Spielvogel|2001|page=[https://archive.org/details/worldhistoryto1500duik/page/146 146]}}

The extreme expressions of this power—the selling or killing of family members for moral or civil offences, including simple disobedience—were very rarely exercised, and were forbidden in the Imperial era. A ''pater familias'' had moral and legal duties towards all family members. Even the most despotic ''pater familias'' was expected to consult senior members of his household and ''gens'' over matters that affected the family's well-being and reputation. Traditionally, such matters were regarded as outside the purview of the state and its magistrates; under the emperors, they were increasingly subject to state interference and legislation.<ref>Parkin, Tim, & Pomeroy, Arthur, ''Roman Social History, a Sourcebook,'' Routledge, 2007, p. 72. {{ISBN|978-0415426756}}</ref>

Once accepted into their birth family by their fathers, children were potential heirs. They could not be lawfully given away, or sold into slavery. If parents were unable to care for their child, or if its paternity was in doubt, they could resort to [[infant exposure]] (Boswell translates this as being "offered" up to care by the gods or strangers). If a deformed or sickly newborn was patently "unfit to live", killing it was a duty of the ''pater familias''. A citizen father who exposed a healthy freeborn child was not punished, but automatically lost his ''potestas'' over that child. Abandoned children were sometimes adopted; some would have been sold into slavery.<ref>Boswell, John Eastburn, "Expositio and Oblatio: The Abandonment of Children and the Ancient and Medieval Family", ''American Historical Review'', '''89''', 1984, p. 12</ref> Slavery was near-ubiquitous and almost universally accepted. In the early Republic, citizens in debt were allowed to sell their labour, and perhaps their sons, to their debtor in a limited form of slavery called ''[[nexum]]'', but this was abolished in the middle Republic. Freedom was considered a natural and proper state for citizens; slaves could [[Manumission|be lawfully freed]], with consent and support of their owners, and still serve their owners' family and financial interests, as freedmen or freed women. This was the basis of the [[Patronage in ancient Rome|client-patron relationship]], one of the most important features of Rome's economy and society.{{Sfn|Casson|1998|pages=[https://archive.org/details/everydaylifeinan00cass/page/10 10–11], 24–32}}

In law, a ''pater familias'' held ''potestas'' over his adult sons with their own households. This could give rise to legal anomalies, such as adult sons also having the status of minors. No man could be considered a ''pater familias'', nor could he truly hold property under law, while his own father lived.{{Sfn|Casson|1998|pages=[https://archive.org/details/everydaylifeinan00cass/page/10 10–11, 24–32]}}<ref>[http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777121908/ Family Values in Ancient Rome] by Richard Saller. The University of Chicago Library Digital Collections: Fathom Archive. 2001. Visited 14 April 2007.</ref> During Rome's early history, married daughters came under the control (''manus'') of their husbands' ''pater familias''. By the late Republic, most married women retained lawful connection to their birth family, though any children from the marriage belonged to her husband's family.{{Sfn|Adkins|Adkins|1998|pp=39–40}} The mother or an elderly relative often raised both boys and girls.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rawson |first=Beryl |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=85Gdul_43DEC&pg=PP7 |title=The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives |date=1987 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-0801494604 |page=7 |language=en}}</ref> Roman moralists held that marriage and child-raising fulfilled a basic duty to family, ''gens'', and the state. Multiple remarriages were not uncommon. Fathers usually began seeking husbands for their daughters when these reached an age between twelve and fourteen, but most commoner-class women stayed single until their twenties, and in general seem to have been far more independent than wives of the elite. Divorce required the consent of one party, along with the return of any dowry. Both parents had power over their children during their minority and adulthood, but husbands had much less control over their wives.<ref>Frier, Bruce W., and McGinn, Thomas A.J. ''A Casebook on Roman Family Law'', Oxford University Press: American Philological Association, 2004, p. 20</ref>

Roman citizen women held a restricted form of citizenship; they could not vote but were protected by law. They ran families, could own and run businesses, own and cultivate land, write their own wills, and plead in court on their own behalf, or on behalf of others, all under dispensation of the courts and the nominal supervision of a senior male relative. Throughout the late Republican and Imperial eras, a declining birthrate among the elite, and a corresponding increase among commoners was cause of concern for many ''gentes''; [[Augustus]] tried to address this through state intervention, offering rewards to any woman who gave birth to three or more children, and penalising the childless. The latter was much resented, and the former had seemingly negligible results. Aristocratic women seem to have been increasingly disinclined to childbearing; it carried a high risk of mortality to mothers, and a deal of inconvenience thereafter.<ref>Rawson, Beryl, "The Roman Family", in ''The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives'', Cornell University Press, 1986, pp. 30, 40–41.; Galinsky, Karl, ''Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction'', Princeton University Press, 1998, pp. 130–132, {{ISBN|978-0691058900}}</ref>