CASE 94: An Offense Related to Public Pietas
D. 37.15.1.2 (Ulpianus libro primo Opinionum)
Si filius matrem aut patrem, quos venerari oportet, contumeliis adficit vel impias manus eis infert, praefectus urbis delictum ad publicam pietatem pertinens pro modo eius vindicat.
(Ulpian in the first book of his Opinions)
If a son uses vituperative language against the mother or father, whom he ought to honor, or lays irreverent hands upon them, the prefect of the city punishes, in proportion to its severity, an offense related to public pietas.
1. A Postclassical Source.
Although Ulpian's name is attached to the Opinions, this work is widely believed to be from some later legal author, writing after the classical period and perhaps in the late third century A.D. The Opinions are important because they may shed some light on legal developments after the great Roman jurists had stopped writing. To judge from this fragment, did the prefect (an imperial appointee) require a parent's request before intervening? What sort of offense would cause him to act? What do “vituperative language” (contumeliae) and battery have in common? Is it important that the Case makes no distinction between a mother and a father? In short, to what extent does this ruling represent an innovation from classical Roman law, and in this respect is the ruling “progressive”?2. Public Pietas. What role is played by pietas in this holding? Publicapietas may mean something like “legally protected pietas.” How does this differ from the pietas found in classical legal sources?
3. Correction of Morals in the Late Empire.
In A.D. 365, the Emperors Valen- tinian and Valens allow “older kinsmen” to use corporal punishment in disciplining wayward juveniles, “in proportion to their offense” (pro qualitate delicti: C. 9.15.1 = C.Th. 9.13.1). This ruling seems to assume that the juveniles are sui iuris, that is, that they have no paterfamilias of their own; the emperors are thus extending the ambit of those who can use corporal punishment. Punishment for more serious offenses is, however, reserved for criminal courts. Does this represent a further step in the decay of patria potestas?4. Revoking Emancipation. Two years later, in A.D. 367, the emperors issue a rescript (C. 8.49.1 = C.Th. 8.14.1) concerning sons who, after being emancipated by their father from his power (see below, Part C.3), then engage in grossly insulting behavior toward him; their emancipation can be revoked. Revoking emancipation for ingratitude was not possible in classical law. Is the rescript a major novelty? Does it imply a further change in the relationship between the state and the family?
More on the topic CASE 94: An Offense Related to Public Pietas:
- CASE 94: An Offense Related to Public Pietas
- PUBLIC PORTENTS
- Contents
- Related Sporting Activities
- Modernization and Related Phenomena
- Honor
- Frier Bruce W., McGinn Thomas A.J.. A casebook on Roman family law. Oxford University Press,2004. — xxi+506 p., 2004
- Manus and marriage43
- Seneca’s Ad Marciam and Ad Helviam matrem
- E Divorce and patria potestas