Roman context The original classical Roman definition of
familia referred to “a body of slaves,” and did not refer to wives and children. The classical legal concept of
pater familias as “head of household” derived from this early conception of
familia and, thus, from the legal relationship between slaveowners and their enslaved laborers rather than that between fathers and children. Since
the early classical period, Roman writers and jurists have interpreted ancient writers’ invocation of
pater familias as the basis of the concept of “head of household”—over the alternative Latin word for slaveowner,
dominus—as a purposeful choice, intended to mitigate the harsh connotations that the act of slaveholding conferred onto heads of households and expanding the applicability of the term to non-enslaved members of the household. As a semantic term,
pater familias thus connoted heads of household who were thought to combine the affective tenderness of a father with the stern coercion of a slaveowner in ordering their households. As Roman jurists began to articulate the legal conception of
pater familias from the early classical period onwards, the minimum qualification for assuming the status of
pater familias came to be understood as one’s capacity to own property. However, in Roman law, this was considered a distinct dimension of the
pater familias’ authority from their capacity to hold dominion over enslaved persons. While some Roman
patres familias permitted enslaved individuals in their households to establish quasi-marital unions (known as
contubernia) as a means of forming communal bonds among the enslaved, these unions were only recognized within the household and carried no legal bearing outside of the household. The children that resulted from these unions were themselves enslaved and considered the legal property of their mother’s owner. Roman legal sources often recognized enslaved people as part of the
instrumenta (roughly translated as “equipment”) of the household to highlight the service they provided the
pater familias. This definition included both enslaved people working in field settings and those living in the domestic household and working in direct service of the
pater familias. As a consequence of this,
patres familias maintained honor and status within their communities by fulfilling both the material and spiritual needs of all members of the household, including enslaved persons. This included providing for the food, clothing, shelter, education, and baptism of enslaved persons. When they reneged on these obligations, the law code considered them to forfeit their right to ownership of their enslaved, leading in some cases to disputes between paternal heads of household over the status of enslaved persons whom they each claimed to have “raised.” In the context of
plantation slavery in the antebellum U.S. South, slaveowning planters developed a rhetorical defense of slavery as a benevolent,
paternalistic institution based on the ancient Roman model of the
pater familias. Some planters employed the concept as a legal protectionary measure, instructing renters to whom they “hired out” their enslaved laborers to “treat” them “as good
pater familias,” in an effort to stymie abusive practices. Others used the concept to rationalize planter rule, claiming themselves sovereigns of their households who provided for all constituent members, and demanding their loyalty and labor in return. Drawing on the Roman precedent in this way, these planters claimed that their enslaved laborers were their “dependents,” who ultimately benefitted from the paternalistic ordering of the household. Southern newspapers and print media repeatedly promoted this idea in order to square the intrinsic brutality that defined the institution of slavery with the democratic ideals the nation was supposedly founded on, often developing this paternalistic ideology to irrational heights and ignoring the contradictions that it masked. This paternalistic ideology persisted after the legal abolition of slavery, as white employers and political leaders in the South attempted to maintain a hierarchical socioeconomic class status over formerly enslaved persons, as well as women and poor laborers, whom they viewed as “dependents,” thereby expanding the Roman household model of
pater familias to the level of broader society. The patriarchal mode of slavery that Southern U.S. and Caribbean slaveowners attempted to establish often clashed with the familial structures enslaved people themselves constructed. Some of these family structures had
roots in West African societies. The
Akan society of the Gold Coast, for example, was largely
matrilineal and composed of individual “clans or lineages,” descended from a single mother.
Mandé society, while more often organized along
patrilineal lines, exhibited some matrilineal lines and generally reserved powerful positions of political and household authority for women. These alternative modes of structuring household and family life among enslaved people threatened some planters’ intentions to serve as the solely acknowledged
pater familias of their households. ==See also==