belong fully to the commonwealth butrndo not share fully the privileges of citizenship.rnFor at least a generation it hasrnbeen fashionable to stigmatize Romanrnfamily relationships for their coldnessrnand to condemn the severity of Romanrnfathers in the exercise of their authorityrn(the patria potestas). The most importantrnscholar to take this view (derived,rnapparenriy, from Philippe Aries’ entirelyrnerroneous theory of childhood) is PaulrnVeyne in his brilliant, if eccentric, contributionrnto the History of Everyday Life.rnGardner, relying on recent work ofrnRichard Sailer and Edward Champlin,rnpaints a rather different portrait of thernRoman family. The exercise of the powerrnof life and death was, for example,rnlimited first to the father’s right tornrepudiate a child at birth and later torncarry out a sentence of death after hernhad convoked a family council. Fathersrncould and did use corporal punishment,rnbut most of the literary sources stress paternalrnpietas, that is affectionate loyalty,rnas the hallmark of fatherhood. Sincernwhippings were a servile punishment,rnRoman citizens were reluctant to appl}-rnit to their own free-born sons. Uncmancipatedrnsons did remain, in theory, un-rnTHE RIGHT GUIDErn1995rnCAN YOU MATCH CEO & SALARY?rn1. Edward Crane, III (Cato Institute)rn2. Christopher DeMuth (AEI)rn3. Edwin Feulner, Jr. (Heritage Found.)rn4. John Goodman (NCPA)rn5. Wayne LaPierre, Jr. (NRA)rn6. Ralph Reed, Jr. (Christian Coalition)rn(not in correct order)rna) $122,556 b) $111,507 c) $161,593rnd) $430,158 e) $329,560 f) $173,881rnThe answers are in THE RIGHT GUIDErn1995, a directory of over 3,400 conservative,rntraditional values and freemarketrnorganizations. 831 groups arernprofiled in-depth, listing mission, accomplishments,rnpublications, personnelrnand salaries, revenues, expenditures,rnnet assets, newspaper citations, more.rn”THE RIGHT GUIDE 1995 is a greatrnresource for networking in America’srnliberty movement.”WALTER B. WILLIAMSrn484 pages, clothbound.rn$49.95 (includes UPS shipping)rnEconomics America, Inc.rn612 Church St.rnAim Arbor, MI 48104rnVisa or MC call (800) 878-6141rnder their fathers’ thumbs without evenrnthe capacity to make contracts, but wellto-rndo fathers granted allowances andrneven found ways of enabling their sonsrnto conduct business.rnThe status of freedmen was akin tornthat of an unemancipated son, meaningrna son who remained in his father’s potestas.rnTo his patron he owed respect andrneven service, and he could not, in principle,rnsue his former master, if the suitrnwould endanger the patron’s reputation.rnAlthough these restrictions have beenrnanalyzed as devices to reinforce class distinctionsrnand preserve the status quo,rnGardner sees them as a natural outgrowthrnof a political ethic rooted m thernfamily. If freedmen labored under particularrnobligations (which they oftenrnattempted to shirk), their masters, too,rnwere obliged to respect the formerrnslave’s free condition, even when thernfreedman continued to live in his master’srnhouse and discharge the same duties.rn”The central aim of the regulationsrnbetween patrons and freedmen . . . appearrnto have been to maintain stabilityrnand harmonv’ in Roman societ)’.”rnThe Romans looked at everyday lifernand moral obligation from a perspectivernthat seems quite foreign to our post-rnEnlightenment world. A woman wasrnsubject, at least in principle, to thernauthority of some man, her father,rnhusband, or guardian. Yet Roman womenrnin the upper classes were remarkablyrnforceful characters, their independencernbeing guaranteed by their wealth and socialrnconnections. Since they could notrnexercise potestas over others, they werernforbidden to adopt children or even tornhead a household. Emancipated womenrncould engage in litigation, dispose ofrnproperty, and marry and divorce at will,rnand even unemancipated women, whenrnit was necessary for them to transactrnbusiness or manage families, found waysrnof evading or simply ignoring the legalrnrestrictions. Gardner offers an unconvincingrnMarxist interpretation of women’srnstatus, which she bases ultimatelyrnon the physical inferiority of the femalernsex, but since there is no society wherernwomen have a status equal (much lessrnsuperior) to men’s, any attempt tornexplain Roman gender differences is petitiornprincipi. Roman status differencesrntook the form they did because of thernimportance attached to the authority ofrnmale household heads as the foundationrnof citizenship.rnMuch is made in current Americanrnlaw of a supposed right to privacy, butrnGreeks and Romans conceived of thernpublic/private distinction in terms quiterndifferent from what an American judgernmight imagine. The line was drawn notrnat the person but at the threshold of thernhouse. A Roman marriage was a morernor less private arrangement betweenrnthe contracting parties, typically thernhusband and his father-in-law, and thernlaw was invoked only when problemsrnarose—for example, in disputes overrndowries after a divorce. Most sexualrnindiscretions were treated as privaternmatters, but passive homosexuality andrnprostitution were seen as a defilement ofrnthe civil order and might result in loss ofrncertain privileges. Some occupationsrnwere morally tarnished, and prostitutes,rngladiators, and actors could not exercisernthe privileges of citizenship. However,rnwhat often seems arbitrary or capriciousrnin Roman law turns out to result from arncoherent view of human life in whichrnthe household—not the individual orrnthe state—is at the center. Prostitutes,rnby their very profession, could not bearrncitizen children, and public performersrnlacked the moral seriousness to dischargernthe duties incumbent upon a Romanrnfather, much less a Roman senator.rnIt is hard to know which of Caligula’srnpranks was more offensive, his facetiousrnproposal to make his horse a senator orrnhis own athletic demonstrations.rnIn her conclusion, Gardner points tornthe two factors that persist throughoutrnRoman history: first, the insistence uponrnpersonal presence in any legal transactions,rnan attitude that led, for example,rnto an emphasis on witnesses over documentsrnand to rather curious complicationsrnfor the deaf and blind who werernunable to make their own wills; and, second,rnthe special position of the father asrnhousehold head. “Both are aspects ofrnthe same principle, namely the autonomyrnof the individual familia; an autonomyrnbreached by the state, so far as thernconduct of the internal affairs of thernfamilia is concerned, only where thisrnmay be felt to endanger the stability ofrnother parts of society.” The Roman father’srnauthority, so far from endangeringrnthe safety and welfare of his dependents,rnserved actually as a buffer against staternintrusion into the household. “Reliancernwas placed on the pater to take care ofrnmuch that in modern society is providedrnfor, or enforced by, the state.”rnFor all its many and manifest defects,rnthe Roman legal and political systemrn36/CHRONICLESrnrnrn