The passage of Dionysius of Halicarnassus which is most often cited in a discussion of father and son interactions at Rome depicts children as possessions of the paterfamilias (2.26).67 However, a variety of other sources present a quite different picture. A kind of reciprocal duty, or pietas, between fathers and sons was the expectation for this relationship according to Roman law. Gaius (Inst. 4.78) writes that neither son nor father was allowed to prosecute or give evidence against the other. Plutarch’s biographies often show fathers and sons as companions, colleagues, and allies in their public offices and private lives.68 Perhaps this, more than anything else, discredits an interpretation based solely on the legal powers of the father as the ultimate symbol of Roman social relations. More often than not, the Lives depict fathers and sons in a relationship based on give and take, mutual encouragement, and support. Livy’s narrative, although its focus is not on personal relationships or individual biographies, equally includes a number of examples which portray interactions between famous fathers and sons. Then there are the letters of Cicero which provide indispensable information towards the lives of these individuals Literary Depictions
As we have seen in our discussion of Roman childhood, parents and children could often be separated for long periods of time. Divorce, re-marriage, the demands of public office, and high early mortality rates should be kept in mind when analysing father and son relationships in the Republic. Nevertheless, family bonds did exist, and parents took care to behave towards their children in ways which were considered appropriate. Cato the Elder married again in his old age because his son
67 See Ch. II, section 1.
68 See Ch. II, p. 79, n. 13 on the comparison between Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch. Also, note the fact that Plutarch is writing under the empire in the Second Century AD when Roman rule was more wide-spread and Roman custom would have been better known in those areas under her control.
217
lived together with his wife in his home, and both are said to have been displeased at the presence of a slave girl who would visit his room (24.1-4). There are two points worth noting in this anecdote. The fact that the grown man, though married, still shared a house with his father supports the argument that there were close connections between parents and children.69 An explanation for this may be that the son was still under the father’s potestas, but if so this still supports the idea that parents and children spent a notable amount of time with one another. The second point is that the father altered his own behaviour in order to appease his son, and in order to act in a way which was more appropriate in a household containing a married couple. It shows that the discomfort of his son and daughter-in-law was a valid enough reason for him to alter his own lifestyle.
Plutarch’s depiction of the last days of Cato the Younger is one of the best illustrations of a father showing obvious consideration for the emotional well-being of a son. He allowed the young man to stay with him even though he had sent the rest of his family away to safety and he is reported as having said that it did not seem right to forcibly separate a son from his father (Cat. Min. 65.4). The night before his suicide was spent in the company of his son and friends. The son suspected his father’s intentions and took the sword from his room in an attempt to change his mind; when Cato the Younger demanded that the sword be returned, he begged his father not to kill himself (Cat. Min. 68-69). This scene very clearly depicts an interaction between father and son in which an emotional bond of some kind is in evidence. Having realised that his words had failed to sway the resolve of his father, the son is described as leaving the room in tears (Cat. Min. 69.1). Even if this story is apocryphal, it shows what was regarded as plausible – that a son should feel a degree of grief at the prospect of his father’s suicide.
69 As Saller and Shaw (1984), 137 have pointed out, sons from wealthy families could and did, in various examples, live in separate accommodation from their parents.
218
Just as fathers protected their children in terms of what they were exposed to in their younger years, there is also evidence of fathers protecting their sons from pressures in the political sphere. One way was by defending sons involved in prosecutions, and this was very much something which went both ways for fathers and sons. Caeso Quinctius, the son of L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, was falsely accused of murder by the tribune, Aulus Virginius. His family attempted to protect him, but he escaped from Rome and, in his absence, was condemned to death. His father, the future dictator, had to pay a fine which resulted in him retiring to a small farm (Livy, 3.11-14).
Although the father lost a great deal during the prosecution (money, status, presence in the city), it is still a price that he paid in order to defend his son. Again, whether the depiction of this story is accurate or not – as the accuracy of early Roman history is, of course, often in doubt – it is important that the way in which it was portrayed was accepted and passed on.
Another example of a father who defended his son regardless of the cost or danger to himself was the father of Lucius Caesetius Flavius who is described by Valerius Maximus as having refused to disown his son at Caesar’s order. This son was the tribune of the plebs who, along with Gaius Epidius Marcellus, had removed the diadem from the statue of Caesar and arrested those who hailed him as King (5.7.2).70 Likewise, in 42 BC, Lucius Octavius Balbus put his own safety at risk in order to defend his son. Having been proscribed by the triumvirs, he was making his escape when he thought he heard his son being attacked. He turned back to help, and this delay resulted in his capture and subsequent execution (Cic. Clu. 38; Verr. 2.12;
Val. Max. 5.7.3; App. B Civ. 4.2.1).
As mentioned, this was something that went both ways. The story of Scipio Africanus coming to his father’s rescue in a fight against Hannibal’s troops at the beginning of the second Punic war (218 BC) is told by Valerius Maximus (5.4.2) and
70 Cf. Plut. Caes. 61.5-10 and Livy, Per. 116. The father’s role only appears in the account by Valerius Maximus.
219
Livy (21.46.7). Livy’s account describes how the Elder Scipio was saved by his young son after being separated from his own troops, and emphasises that this was the young man who went on to achieve glory in his future career. A more detailed account is given by Polybius in a passage where he describes the character of Scipio.
The Greek historian writes that the son tried to lead his troops to his father but the majority would not go; he advanced towards the enemy alone which forced his troops to follow, and saved his father’s life. He cites Gaius Laelius, a close friend of Scipio Africanus, as the source for this story and tells how the father and consul hailed his son as his saviour before the entire army (Polyb. 10.3).
Finally, sons often protected their fathers in the political sphere, and, where necessary, sought vengeance on their behalf. Crassus set out to join Sulla in Spain after the death of his father and, after asking for an escort to be given him for a task he was to undertake, Sulla told him that he should take his dead father and friends with him (Plut. Crass. 6.3). The tendency to prosecute the man who had brought a case against an individual’s father at Rome has also been discussed.71 It could be useful for the political advancement of a young man, but it must also have included a desire for retribution on the part of the son (See Plut. Cat. Mai. 15.3).
However, a Roman son did not only seek to repair the reputation of a father. An individual conducting public business during the Republic was often accompanied by a circle of friends and family members which almost always contained his son, if he had one who was old enough. Of course, this was crucial in terms of a young man’s education, but it can also be viewed as a way of supporting the father in his public life. For example, Cicero presents a son serving with his father’s army as an example of pietas in the Pro Murena (11-12).72 The sons of Marcellus, Fabius Maximus, and Crassus also accompanied their fathers on campaign, while the son of Cato the
71 See Ch. III, section 1.
72 See Steel (2002), 139.
220
Younger fought in the battle of Philippi against Caesar and Antony.73 Similarly, as commander at the battle of Pydna, Aemilius Paullus is described as being surrounded by a body of advisors and friends in which his sons and sons-in-law were members (Plut. Aem. 10.2). In the case of M. Licinius Crassus, the son is presented as a companion to his father, encouraging him with his own enthusiasm into the engagement with the Parthians in 53 BC which resulted in a terrible defeat (Plut.
Crass. 23.5). Pompey was also known to have used the support of both his son and father-in-law, entrusting them to raise a fleet for him during the run up to the war with Caesar (Plut. Pomp. 62.2). Moreover, in his own younger years, he is depicted by Plutarch as trying to reconcile the soldiers to his father after they had deserted their commander (3.3).
Similarly, it appears to have been traditional for the children of a successful general to take part in their father’s triumphal procession (Cic. Mur. 11).74 This could be interpreted as a way of taking pride in a father’s achievements while also displaying the continuity of the family line for the entire state to behold. Livy (45.40) narrates the triumph of Aemilius Paullus in which Scipio Aemilianus and Fabius Maximus – both adopted into other families by that time – took part in the procession. The historian points out that the young sons from Paullus’ second marriage should also have been riding alongside their father had tragedy not struck the family. Therefore, just as in the funeral procession, which will be discussed more fully at the end of this chapter, the young men of the family took part in the ceremony. There are republican coins which show a triumphant general with his son beside him where the young man might have soaked up the glory and achievements of his father and dreamed of
73 Having been surrounded by the enemy during the battle, he is reported to have shouted that he was the son of Marcus Cato before he was killed (Plut. Brut. 49.9-10).
74 Beard (2007), 224.
221
the day when he too might attain similar victories.75 For example, C. Fundanius issued a coin in 101 BC which shows a child riding on one of the horses (RRC 326/1 and 326/2); the iconography suggests that the denarius relates to the victories of Marius over the Cimbri and Teutones.76 Another coin depicts the triumph of Cn.
Pompeius Magnus in 61 BC and it has a similar young boy riding on one of the horses (RRC 402/1a and b).
Of course, the practice of accompanying one’s father during a triumph was also important in emphasising the role that sons should play in society, and encouraged the emulation of virtue and glory that would have been personified by the triumphant general. However, it was possible for this to go both ways. Valerius Maximus describes the example of Fabius Rullianus who is depicted accompanying, after 5 consulships, his son Fabius Gurges to finish a difficult war. Even though he was an influential and renowned statesman and general in his own right, he is presented as saying that it was a pleasure, not a hardship, to follow his son on horseback in the triumph (Val. Max. 5.7.1; Livy, Per. 11).77 Although this is presented as an indulgence in the later source, this example clearly shows an aged father, after a long career, taking pride in the success of one of his children. Fabius Rullianus is portrayed as content that the traditional roles in the triumph have been reversed, and the achievements of the son now stand as a continuation of the glory of the family. It was not necessary for the old man to take part in the war or to follow behind his son in the triumph, when the natural order would have seen the son follow the father, but
75 Beard (2007) has stated that: ‘It seems to have been, or become, the custom that the general’s young children should travel in the chariot with him, or, if they were older, to ride horses alongside. We have already seen Germanicus sharing his chariot in 17 CE with five offspring. Appian claims that Scipio in 201 BCE was accompanied by ‘boys and girls’, while Livy laments the fact that in 167 BCE Aemilius Paullus’ young sons could not – through death or sickness – travel with him, ‘planning similar triumphs for themselves.’’, 224. On the Roman triumph more generally, see Brilliant (1999), 221-231.
76 Crawford (1974), 145; cf. Beard (2007), 224.
77 Coriolanus is also described as having taken great pride in his mother’s happiness at his achievements, and always afforded her the honour due to her, and to his father who had died when he was young (Plut. Cor. 4.3-4).
222
he took pleasure in doing so nevertheless. For further examples of fathers showing pride in their son’s achievements, there is the occasion when the Elder Scipio hailed his son, Scipio Africanus, as his saviour before the army (Polyb. 10.3). Cato the Elder also wrote a letter to his son after Cato Licinianus had fought to retrieve his lost sword during the battle of Pydna. The general, Aemilius Paullus, was impressed with the young man’s actions, and his father praises his bravery in the letter (Plut.
Cat. Mai. 20.8, Aem. 21.1-5).
The sources also present companionship as an important element of the relationship between father and son. Plutarch describes the reunion of Marius with his son before his death, depicting them embracing affectionately and discussing matters as they walked along the sea-shore (Mar. 40.6). Previously, the younger Marius had accompanied his father into exile after Sulla’s march on Rome in 88 BC and had sought help against Sulla in Africa where he was taken hostage (Mar. 40.5). Both instances show the son supporting, and following in the footsteps, of his father.
Similarly, brothers acted as companions towards one another.78 Livy, Plutarch, Polybius, and Valerius Maximus all comment on the close bond between Scipio Aemilianus Africanus and Fabius Maximus. Having been adopted into a wealthier family, the former gave half of his inheritance to his brother and both funded the lavish funeral games for their biological father, Aemilius Paullus (Val. Max. 6.7.1, 5.10.2; Livy, Per. 46; Polyb. 18.35-36, 31.26).79 Equally, Crassus was well-known to have had great affection for his family. When his two brothers had married they all shared the same table with their parents, and Plutarch suggests that this was one of the main reasons for Crassus’ moderate character (1.1). Moreover, when one of his brothers died, Crassus took his widow as his own wife and had his children with her (1.1).
78 On the relationship between brothers, see Bannon (1998).
79 See the case study of Aemilius Paullus and his sons in Ch. IV, section 3.
223
Cato the Younger was another figure whose relationship with his brother was commented upon in the ancient sources. Plutarch tells how, when asked who his favourite was as a young boy, he had answered that he loved his brother Caepio most (Cat. Min. 3.5). He also took part in the Servile war because his brother was acting as a military tribune, and is described as having acted in a manner unbefitting his Stoic philosophy on the death of Caepio (Cat. Min. 11.1-4). Likewise, Lucullus displayed such affection for his younger brother that he refused to hold public office until his brother was old enough. This resulted in the people electing him aedile alongside his brother, even though he was outside of the city at the time (Luc.1.6). These examples all depict close relationships between family members.
Cato the Elder and his son also lived together, even when the latter had married and begun his own family (Plut. Cat. Mai. 24). Likewise, Plutarch and Valerius Maximus both describe the co-resident married brothers, the Aelii Tuberones, living together peacefully (Plut. Aem . 5; Val. Max. 4.4.9). Companionship and support were clearly elements that could, and did, exist in father and son interactions. These examples all prove that family relationships could be complex. Tensions and conflicts could exist, but this section shows that there are numerous examples of fathers and sons working together.
Conflict
In a time of disruptive civil wars, there were a number of potential causes of conflict between fathers and sons, and it is important to emphasise that the bond between the two could be complicated.80 Eyben has collected instances which show conflict between father and son over a large expanse of time, and thus suggest a high frequency of everyday clashes. However, one must also take into account those sources which present a different picture while also bearing in mind the fact that
80 Refer to Eyben (1977), 526-40 (1991), 114-43 and (1993), 206-13 for a discussion of conflict between Roman fathers and sons in literary sources, especially the comedies of Plautus.
224
certain anecdotes appear in the sources because they are striking and unusual examples. As Chapter III and Chapter IV have shown, relatively cooperative father and son relationships were the social norm. Nevertheless, the absence of the father, as discussed by Bradley, could have significant consequences for the relationship. He states that, ‘contact between father and children might be not only temporarily broken but sometimes completely ruptured’.81 However, scholars such as Dixon argue that the presence of different caregivers in the lives of young Romans should not necessarily be regarded negatively or from the point of view of modern Western societies.
At this point, it is important to revisit the Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino discussed in Chapter III. In Cicero’s defence of the son, he proposes a number of motives that might have led Roscius to kill his father. Their mention in his defence speech allows Cicero to present these potential accusations to his audience as absurd. However, their presence is significant as it does suggest that certain motivations might have been regarded as possible reasons for sons to plot against their fathers; for example, in the situation where a young man has built up a great deal of debt. However, it is important to point out that not one of the examples of conflict provided in the primary sources depicts fathers resorting to patria potestas in order to resolve the issue.82 This makes it clear that even during disagreements, the legal powers of the father were rarely utilised, although the social consequences of elements such as the economic disability of the son might have generally made this unnecessary.
However, Laes and Strubbe include a discussion of those issues which would limit conflict between father and son stemming from patria potestas.83These are similar to those factors, discussed in the Introduction, which mitigated the effects of the father’s legal powers: the fact that many men married older and so may not have
81 Bradley (1991), 56.
82 In fact, one could also mention the point that nowhere in any of Cicero’s letters - where one might expect to find some reference – is patria potestas mentioned.
83 Laes and Strubbe (2014), 153-4.